6F  PRINC^ 


C^^OGICAL  StV^^^'  ^ 


BV   811    .F35 

Fairchild,  Ashel  Green, 

1795-1864 

scripture  baptism 


SCRIPTUEE  BAPTISM, 


MODE  AND  SUBJECTS 


BY  ASHBEL  G.  FAIRCHILD,  D.  D., 
AUTHOR   OF   THE    *' GREAT   SUPPER/ 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

NO.  821  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1858,  by 

JAMES  DUNLAP,  Treas., 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District 

of  Pennsylvania. 


CONTENTS. 

PART   I. 

ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER  I. 


PAGE 


Our  Position  Defined — Offensive  Position  of  the 
Baptists — The  Question  Stated — Baptism  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  Fire — Immersion  in 
AVind — "  Baptized  into  one  Body" — The  Baptism 
before  Dinner — Baptism  of  Table-couches — 
Christ's  Bloody  Baptism — Overwhelm — "  Divers 
Washings" — Noah  in  the  Ark — Baptism  in  the 
Cloud  and  Sea 9 

CHAPTER  H. 

Evasion  of  Immersionists — Judith  baptized  at  a 
Fountain — The  Greek  Fathers — Kataduo,  to 
PLUNGE — Authority  of  the  Pagan  Classics — 
Greek  of  the  N.  T.  a  peculiar  idiom — Technical 
religious  terms — Bapto — The  Lexicons — Ancient 
versions — Tingo 28 

CHAPTER  HI. 

Baptism  at  rivers — John  at  Jordan  and  ^non — 
"Much  water" — ''In  Jordan" — John's  baptism 
superseded — Jesus  baptized  by  John — "  Out  of 
the    water  " — Pictorial     representations  — Why 

Jesus  was  baptized 48 

(3) 


CONTENTS.     • 


CHAPTER  IV. 

PAGK 


Inconsistency  of  Immersionists — Baptism  of  the 
three  thousand — Curious  experiment — The  facili- 
ties for  dipping — Change  of  clothing — Baptism 
of  the  eunuch — "  Into  the  water" — "  Out  of  the 
water" — The  eunuch  not  immersed    . 


CHAPTER  y. 

Baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus — Anastas — Washing 
away  sins — Baptism  of  Cornelius — Peter's  idea 
of  baptism — Baptism  of  the  jailer — Symbolical 
import  of  baptism — "  Buried  by  baptism" — 
*' One  baptism" — Allusions  in  Scripture  to  affu- 
sion— Sprinkling  is  cleansing — Peter's  inkling 
for  water — Opinions  of  men        .        .        .        .84 

CHAPTER  YI. 

History  of  Immersion — Its  origin— Dipping  of  per 
sons  naked — Immersion  and  Baptism  different 
rites — Existing  traces  of  the  distinction  among 
the  Armenians,  Greeks,  and  Abyssinians  .        .  105 


PART  II. 

ON  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER  I. 

History  of  Infant  Baptism — The  Greeks,  Arme- 
nians, Nestorians,  Syrians,  Abyssinians,  Wal- 
denscs — The  Petrobrussians — The  Pelagian  con- 
troversy— Council  of  Carthage — 'i'estimony  of 
Origeu,  TertuUian,  Irenajus        .        .        .        .119 


CONTENTS.  5 

CHAPTER  II. 

PAGE 

Family  Baptisms — Apostolic  Rule  of  Baptism — 
Family  of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia,  of  the  jailer — 
Model  Missionary  Report — Baptisms  at  Corinth 
— Family  of  Stephanas — Oikos  and  Oiha — 
Christ  and  the  Sadducees 140 

CHAPTER  III. 

Christ's  instructions  to  his  disciples — Infants  brought 
to  Christ — •■'  Of  such,  toiouton,  the  kingdom  of 
heaven" — The  command  to  baptize — Matheteuo 
— Peter's  understanding  of  the  commission — 
«  The  promise" 162 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Sameness  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches — 
No  new  organization  by  the  apostles — The  first 
Christian  Church  unbaptized — The  olive  tree — 
Testimony  of  facts — An  unjust  imputation — 
Nature  of  Infant  Membership — Import  of  Cir- 
cumcision  180 

CHAPTER  Y. 

A  Direct  Warrant  Needless — Female  Communion 
— Objections  Answered — Baptism  not  Inappli- 
cable to  Infants — Infant  Communion — Advan- 
tages of  Infant  Baptism    196 

1* 


PART  I. 
ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


SCRIPTURE  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Our  Position  Defined — Offensive  Position  of  the  Baptists 
— The  Question  Stated — Baptism  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  Fire — Immersion  in  Wind — "  Baptized 
into  one  Body" — The  Baptism  before  Dinner — Bap- 
tism of  Table-couches — Christ's  Bloody  Baptism — 
Overwhelm — "  Divers  Washings" — Noah  in  the  Ark 
— Baptism  in  the  Cloud  and  Sea. 

It  is  well  known  that  there  is  some  di- 
versity of  opinion  and  practice  in  regard  to 
the  mode  of  christian  baptism.  The  far 
greater  part  of  evangelical  christians,  amount- 
ing to  more  than  nine-tenths  of  the  whole, 
content  themselves  with  a  simple  application 
of  water  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  as  the 
most  scriptural  and  significant  mode.  On 
the  other  hand,  a  large  and  respectable  divi- 
sion of  the  Protestant  church  insist  upon  a 
dipping  of  the  whole  body,  as  essential  to 
the  validity  of  the  ordinance.  Another 
smaller  division  as  warmly  contend  that  the 
baptism  is  not  valid,  unless  the  dipping  is 
thrice  repeated. 

(9) 


10  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


OUR  POSITION   DEFINED. 

For  ourselves,  we  regard  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism as  a  matter  of  small  importance  in  itself. 
Neither  the  quantity  of  water  nor  the  act 
of  baptism  can  influence  the  state  of  our 
hearts,  or  determine  our  condition  in  the 
sight  of  God.  Very  little  injury,  therefore, 
would  result  from  the  diversity  of  practice 
existing,  provided  that  none  would  lay  par- 
ticular stress  upon  their  own  peculiar  mode. 
The  same  remark  is  applicable  to  the  cele^ 
bration  of  the  sacramental  supper.  We  be- 
lieve, indeed,  that  the  participation  of  a 
small  portion  of  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine,  at  any  convenient  hour  of  the  day,  if 
done  in  the  exercise  of  faith  and  love,  is 
a  sufficient  compliance  with  the  Saviour's 
dying  command.  Yet  if  some  christian  de- 
nomination should  think  it  their  duty  to  as- 
semble after  night,  and  make  use  of  a  larger 
quantity  of  the  bread  and  wine,  in  remem- 
brance of  Christ,  than  is  customary  with 
others,  their  error  might  be  regarded  as  com- 
paratively harmless,  so  long  as  they  attached 
no  importance  to  it.  If,  however,  they  should 
begin  to  make  their  little  peculiarity  the 
"principal  and  favourite  theme  of  public  and 
private  discussion — claim  to  be  the  only 
people  on  earth  who  yield  obedience  to 
Christ's  dying  injunction — hold  up  to  ridi- 
cule the  idea  that  a  crumb  of  bread  and  a 
taste  of  wine,  taken  at  noon  day,  should  be 


OFFENSIVE  POSITION   OF   THE   BAPTISTS.  11 

deemed  a  supper;  and  proceed  to  denounce 
all  others  as  guilty  of  open  disobedience  to 
Christ,  and  therefore  unworthy  of  the  com- 
munion of  saints — what  would  we  say  of 
such  christians  ?  We  would  say  that  their 
error,  though  unimportant  in  itself^  had  now 
become  a  most  mischievous  and  dangerous 
one,  against  which  every  faithful  watchman 
should  sound  the  alarm. 


DECISION   OF   THE   APOSTLE    PAUL. 

In  this  view  of  the  matter  we  are  amply 
sustained  by  a  declaration  of  Paul,  uttered 
on  a  very  similar  occasion.  Circumcision, 
under  the  gospel  dispensation,  he  deemed  a 
matter  of  no  consequence  whatever,  in  itself 
considered.  "Neither  circumcision  availeth 
anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith  which 
worketh  by  love."  Yet  when  the  Galatians, 
led  astray  by  false  teachers,  attached  great 
importance  to  that  rite,  as  essential  to  their 
acceptance  with  God,  the  apostle  denounced 
and  opposed  the  error  as  a  delusive  and 
dangerous  one.  He  even  declared,  that  if 
any  of  them  should  be  circumcised,  holding 
such  views,  "Christ  should  profit  them 
nothing."     Gal.  v.  2. 

OFFENSIVE  POSITION   OF  THE  BAPTISTS. 

Let  us  now  apply  the  foregoing  illustra- 
tions.    Our  Baptist  brethren  deem  it  their 


12  THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

duty  to  be  baptized  by  immersion.  If  they 
would  be  content  to  follow  their  own  con- 
victions of  duty,  leaving  to  others  the  un- 
disturbed enjoyment  of  theirs,  little  if  any 
harm  would  be  done.  Unfortunately,  they 
are  not  disposed  to  pursue  a  course  so  emi- 
nently charitable  and  peaceful.  They  lay 
very  great  stress  on  immersion,  and  seek 
every  occasion  to  magnify  its  importance. 
Immersion  is  the  most  prominent  topic  in 
their  public  discourses,  as  it  is  the  chief 
burden  of  their  tracts,  books,  and  news- 
paper publications.  They  appear  to  value 
themselves  on  having  submitted  to  immer- 
sion, and  publicly  claim  to  be  the  only  bap- 
tized christians  in  the  land.  At  the  same 
time  they  speak  reproachfully  of  others,  as 
living  in  a  state  of  disobedience  to  Christ, 
attended  with  danger  to  their  souls.  They 
shut  out  from  their  communion  all  persons 
who,  however  sound  in  the  faith,  or  eminent 
for  piety,  have  not  adopted  their  peculiar 
opinions  ;  accounting  all  such  unworthy  of 
the  fellowship  of  christians. 

We  rejoice  to  know  that  among  them  are 
very  many  truly  excellent  persons  who,  in 
several  respects,  are  ornaments  to  the  chris- 
tian profession  ;  but,  alas  !  a  bad  system  has 
ensnared  them.  On  the  whole,  taking  the 
most  charitable  view  which  the  case  will 
admit,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  position  as- 
sumed by  our  Baptist  brethren  is  attended 
with  immense  mischief.    Among  the  many 


THE   QUESTION  STATED.  13 

thousands  who  listen  to  their  instructions, 
may  there  not  be  multitudes  who  receive  the 
impression  that  immersibn  is  the  great  es- 
sential to  salvation — the  safest  passport  to 
heaven  ?  Are  we  not  under  a  necessity  to 
combat  positions  attended  with  so  much  mis- 
chief to  the  church,  as  well  as  danger  to  im- 
mortal souls  ? 

THE   QUESTIOIf  STATED. 

Since  then  this  discussion  is  forced  upon 
us  by  our  brethren,  let  us  have  the  point  in 
dispute  fairly  understood.  The  Baptists 
assert  that  the  Lord  Jesus  has  commanded 
immersion ;  and  that,  consequently,  all  who 
have  not  been  immersed  are  living  in  open 
disobedience  to  his  authority.  Here  we  join 
issue  with  these  brethren  and  say,  If  Christ 
has  really  commanded  us  to  be  immersed — 
if  the  duty  is  so  important  that  the  neglect 
of  it  is  attended  with  such  serious  conse- 
quences, then  we  ought  to  find  the  command 
very  clearly  and  plainly  expressed  in  the 
scriptures.  And  will  they  allege  that  this 
is  the  case?  Can  they  point  out  a  passage 
in  which  the  duty  of  immersion  is  explicitly 
taught?  I  am  certain  that  they  cannot  pro- 
duce one."^ 

*  That  the  duty  of  immersion  is  not  clearly  taught  in 
the  scriptures  seems  to  be  indirectly  admitted  by  a  large 
body  of  the  most  zealous  immersionists  among  us ;  for 
they  are  expending  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars  in  get- 


14  THE   MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

**But,"  say  our  Baptist  brethren,  "the 
very  word  baptize  signifies  immerse^  and 
nothing  else,  so  tha't  the  command  to  baptize 
is  a  command  to  immerse."  I  answer,  if  this 
be  so,  let  it  be  clearly  shown.  Let  these 
brethren,  at  least,  prove  that  immerse  is  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  scrip- 
tures ;  and  let  them  prove  this,  not  by  the 
opinions  of  men — not  by  the  traditions  of 
the  elders,  but  by  the  Bible  itself.  This  they 
will  find  it  easy  to  do  if  truth  be  on  their 
side.  Happily  for  us,  the  meaning  of  the 
word  baptize^  as  used  by  the  sacred  writers, 
may  be  tested  by  any  reader  of  the  New 
Testament,  whether  learned  or  unlearned. 

THE   BAPTISM  WITH   THE   HOLY   GHOST  AND 
WITH    FIKE. 

For  example :  let  us  take  the  words  of 
John  the  Baptist,  found  in  Matt.  iii.  11.  "  I, 
indeed,  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repent- 
ance :  but  he  [Christ]  .  .  .  shall  baptize  you 

ting  up  a  new  version  of  the  Bible,  with  sucli  alterations 
from  the  old  as  shall  make  it  teach  ]5aptist  opinions 
clearly  and  explicitly.  I'his  is  a  very  important  conces- 
sion on  their  part.  It  proves  that  in  their  own  judgment 
the  duty  of  immersion  is  not  clearly  taught  in  our  pre- 
sent scriptures  ;  for  if  it  be  already  plain  there,  why  wish 
to  make  alterations? 

The  fact  that  two  or  three  persons  of  other  denomina- 
tions have  been  prevailed  on  by  largo  pecuniary  induce- 
rients,  to  assist  in  mamifacturing  a  IJuptist  Bible,  is  no 
alleviatioa  of  the  case. 


WITH  THE    HOLY    GHOST    AND   FIRE.   15 

with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  And 
let  me  ask,  What  did  John  mean  by  the  term 
hajptize  f  Did  he  mean  dip  or  plunge  ?  Did 
he  intend  to  say,  "  He  shall  dip  or  plunge 
you  into  the  Holy  Ghost  and  into  the  fire  ?" 
Common  sense  answers,  No.  Again,  let  me 
ask.  How  and  when  was  this  notable  pro- 
phecy of  the  forerunner  fulfilled  ?  Our 
Saviour  referred  to  it  just  before  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  when  about  to  ascend  to  heaven  ; 
and  commanded  his  disciples,  "that  they 
should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait 
for  the  promise  of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he, 
ye  have  heard  of  me.  For  John  truly  bap- 
tized with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence." 
Acts  i.  4,  5.  Accordingly,  at  the  Pentecostal 
feast  a  few  days  after,  this  promise  of  the 
Father  was  literally  fulfilled.  But  how  ? 
Were  the  apostles  dipped  or  plunged  into 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  into  the  fire?  On  the 
contrary,  if  we  examine  the  account  of  the 
transaction  in  Acts  ii,  we  shall  find  Peter 
declaring  that  therein  was  fulfilled  the  word 
of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet  Joel,  saying,  "  I 
will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh," 
verse  17.  Again,  speaking  of  the  risen  and 
exalted  Saviour,  he  says,  "  He  hath  shed  forth 
this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear,"  verse  33. 
I  ask  further.  How  were  the  disciples  baptized 
with  fire  ?  Were  they  immersed  in  fire  ? 
No,  but  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  sat 
upon  them,  verse  3. 


16  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

IMMERSION  IN  WIND. 

Some  Baptist  writers,  with  more  fancy 
than  judgment,  have  argued  that  the  disci- 
ples were  actually  immersed  on  this  occasion, 
and  in  what,  pray  ?  Why,  in  wind  1  But 
look  at  the  language  of  the  record  in  Acts 
ii.  2.  "And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound 
from  heaven  as  of  a  mighty,  rushing  wind, 
and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were 
sitting."  Here  we  perceive  that  there  was 
no  wind  in  the  case,  but  only  a  sound ;  and 
the  sound  was  like  that  of  a  mighty,  rushing 
wind,  and  the  sound  filled  the  house.  Thus 
it  appears  that  the  argument  of  our  brethren 
is  nothing  but  sound.  It  is  not  even  as 
substantial  as  wind.  We  may  add  that  the 
apostle  Peter,  on  a  subsequent  occasion,  makes 
striking  reference  to  this  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  He  says,  "As  I  began  to 
speak,  the  Holy  Ghost /HZ  on  them,  as  it  di4 
on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then  remembered 
I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  he  said,  John 
indeed  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts  xi. 
15,  16. 

Here,  then,  is  an  instance  of  a  baptism 
without  an  immersion  ;  for  according  to  the 
apostle  Peter,  the  Spirit  was  poured  out^  or 
fell  rqjon  the  disciples.  And  it  proves,  be- 
yond a  doubt,  that  the* word  baptize,  in  the 
New  Testament,  does  not  signify  immerse ; 
and,  of  course,  the  command  to  baptize  is 
not  a  command  to  immerse. 


BAPTIZED  INTO  ONE  BODY.  17 

The  idea  of  immersion  in  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  repugnant  to  all  scriptural  notions  of 
the  subject.  The  sacred  writers  everywhere 
speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  j^oured  out^  shed 
dozvn,  or  falling  upon  the  subjects  of  his 
gracious  influences.  Thus,  Paul  speaks  of 
the  "  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  as  ^^  shed  on  us 
[we  are  not  dipped  therein]  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ."^ 


We  set  out  with  a  determination  to  try 
the  assertions  of  our  opponents,  by  a  test 
available  alike  to  all :  namely,  scripture 
usage.  In  pursuance  of  our  design  we  now 
refer  the  reader  to  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  where 
Paul,  speaking  of  the  union  of  believers 
with  Christ,  says,  "  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body."    Does  he  mean  to 


*  Dr.  Carson  (p.  107)  admits  that  the  baptism  "  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire"  was  "  a  real  baptism." 
If  so,  then,  there  may  be  a  real  baptism  without  an  im- 
mersion. The  same  author  (p.  105)  charges  his  Pedo- 
baptist  opponents  with  attempting  to  represent,  by  sym- 
bols, the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  operation.  Now  the  facts 
of  the  case  are  these.  The  scriptures  tell  us  that  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  the  apostles  were  baptized,  and  that  thai 
with  which  they  were  baptized  was  "  poured  out,"  "  shed 
forth,"  "  fell,"  and  "  sat  upon"  them.  Hence  Pedobap- 
tists  fairly  conclude  that  the  baptism  was  not  by  immer- 
sion ;  and  they  make  no  representations  of  the  Spirit's 
operations  except  in  the  very  words  which  that  divine 
Spirit  has  dictated. 
2* 


18  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

say,  "  we  are  all  dipped  into  one  body  ?" 
Far  from  it.  His  idea  is,  by  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  symbolized  in  water- 
baptism,  the  Corinthian  believers  had  be- 
come united  to  Christ  and  to  one  another. 
The  idea  of  immersion  is  excluded.  To  re- 
present the  believing  members  of  Christ  as 
dipped  into  ids  body,  would  be  as  absurd  as 
to  represent  legs  and  arms  as  dipped  into 
a  human  body. 

The  same  apostle  says,  "  Know  ye  not 
that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death  ?"  Rom.  vi.  3.  What  will  the 
Baptist  Bible  Union  make  of  this  passage, 
in  their  forth-coming  version  ?  Will  they 
render  it,  "  So  many  of  us  as  were  immersed 
into  Jesus  Christ  were  immersed  into  his 
death  */"  If  so,  they  will  certainly  violate 
common  sense.  And  yet  they  can  hardly 
avoid  that  alternative,  for  they  say  that  bap- 
tize always  means  to  immerse. 

But  here  our  opponents  will  ask :  "  Do  you 
then  say  that  the  word  means  to  sprinkle^  and 
that  it  should  be  so  translated  in  the  above 
passages  ?"  I  answer,  No.  We  have  never 
asserted,  nor  are  we  bound  to  prove,  that  the 
Greek  word  iiavrVsoi  (k/^)/;/zo)  specifically  means 
to  sprinkle.  We  believe  it  is  correctly  ren- 
dered baptize^  and  that  no  other  word  would 
convey  its  precise  meaning.  The  sole  ques- 
tion before  us  is,  Does  the  word  baptize^  in 
scripture  usage,  signify  immerse  ?     If  it  does 


BAPTISM  PRACTISED   BEFORE   EATING.     19 

not,  then  the  command  to  baptize  is  not  a 
command  to  immerse.  Let  this  be  borne  in 
mind. 

THE  BAPTISM  PRACTISED  BEFORE  EATING. 

Let  US  now  turn  to  Luke  xi.  37,-38,  where 
we  are  told  that  a  certain  Pharisee,  who  had 
invited  Jesus  to  dine  with  him,  "  marvelled 
that  he  had  not  first  luashed  before  dinner." 
Here  the  word  washed  is  in  the  original 
Greek  i^aTzriaeri  {ebaptisthe)^  the  First  Aorist 
Passive  of  the  verb  paTrraoj  {haptizo)  TO  bap- 
tize. So  then  the  Pharisee  is  here  said  to 
marvel  that  Jesus  had  7iot  been  baptized  before 
dinner.  But  did  he  wonder  that  Jesus  had 
not  been  immersed  before  dinner  ?  Yes,  say 
the  Baptists.  They  are  compelled  to  resort 
to  the  extravagant  assumption  that  the  Phari- 
sees immersed  themselves  before  meals,  and 
that  this  custom  was  so  prevalent  in  the  time 
of  our  Saviour,  that  a  person  who  did  not 
c'omply  with  it  excited  wonder  by  his  singu- 
larity !  They  are  obliged  to  suppose  that 
every  Jew  in  town  and  country,  even  amid 
the  long  and  parching  droughts  of  summer, 
had  convenient  pools  or  running  streams 
near  his  dwelling,  in  which  he  and  his  family 
might  dip  themselves  before  eating!  To 
such  desperate  extremes  are  they  forced  by 
their  position,  that  Panri^^w  {haptizo)  always 
means  to  immerse. 

But  what  kind  of  washing  was  that  prac- 
tised by  the  Pharisees  before  meals?  and  did 


20  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

they  dip  themselves  ?  "What  says  the  in- 
spired record  ?  Says  the  evangelist  Mark, 
"  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding 
the  tradition  of  the  elders."  Chap.  vii.  3. 
This  makes  the  matter  plain.  There  was  no 
immersion  at  all  in  the  case,  but  simply  a 
washing  of  the  hands  in  compliance  with 
tradition  ;  and  that  was  done  among  the  Jews 
by  pouring  water  on  them,  and  not  by  dip- 
ping the  hands  in  water.  See  2  Kings  iii. 
11.  This  wetting  of  the  hands  is  styled,  by 
the  sacred  writer,  a  hajotiziiig  of  the  person. 
As  the  Saviour  did  not  comply  with  the  tra- 
dition, this  gave  occasion  to  the  Pharisee  to 
marvel  that  he  had  not  first  been  bajitized  be- 
fore dinner.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  a 
person  is  baptized  in  the  scripture  sense  of 
the  word,  though  the  water  has  been  applied 
to  but  a  small  part  of  his  body."^ 

THE  BAPTISM  AFTER  BEING  AT  THE  MARKET. 

In  Mark  vii.  4,  we  have  another  example 
of  the  scripture  use  of  the  word  /?a7rrr;«  {hap- 
tizo).  "  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash  they  eat  not." 
Here  the  word  luash  is  in  the  original  ffanriawwai 
{baptisontai),  from  the  verb  (ia^rri^oy  [baptizo,)  TO 

*"  Rabbi  Akiba,  when  in  prison  he  had  not  water 
enoiigli  to  drink,  ordered  it  to  be  poured  on  his  liands, 
sayinjj^,  It  is  better  to  die  with  thirst  tlian  transgress  the 
truditious  of  the  elders." — Fuole's  Synopsis. 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  TABLE- COUCHES.   21 

BAPTIZE.  Being  found  in  the  First  Aorist 
Subjunctive  Middle,  tlie  verb  has  a  reflex 
signification,  so  that  the  strict  grammatical 
meaning  of  the  passage  is,  "  except  they 
have  haptized  themselves  they  eat  not."^ 

We  have  already  seen  that  this  baptizing 
of  themselves  consisted  in  the  v/ashing  of 
the  hands.  There  was  probably  a  more  par- 
ticular and  thorough  washing  of  the  hauds, 
when  they  came  from  the  market  than  on 
other  occasions. 

THE  BAPTISM   OF    TABLE-COUCHES. 

In  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse  last  quoted, 
we  are  informed  that  "  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  (the  Jews)  have  received 
to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups  and  pots, 
brazen  vessels  and  tables."     Here,  again,  the 


■^  Mr.  Alex,  Campbell,  in  his  version  of  the  Xew  Tes- 
tament, gives  the  following  as  a  translation  of  Mark 
vii.  3,  4.  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and  indeed  all  the  Jews 
who  observed  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  eat  not,  except 
they  have  washed  their  hands  by  pouring  a  little  water 
on  them,  and  if  they  be  come  from  the  market,  by  dip- 
ping them."  This,  instead  of  being  a  translation,  is  a 
scandalous  perversion  of  scripture.  The  phrase,  "  by 
pouring  a  little  water  on  them,"  has  not  one  syllalDle  in 
the  original  Greek  to  correspond  with  it.  Then  the 
phrase,  "  they  eat  not,"  occurs  twice  in  the  Greek,  but 
only  once  in  this  pretended  translation.  Again  :  the 
Greek  words,  lav  iifj  /JaTrnVwi/rat  [ean  me  baptisontqi) ,  he 
renders,  "  by  dippmg  them,^'  thus  adding  the  words  by 
and  them,  not  found  in  the  original,  and  ignoring  the  eX' 
istence  of  the  Greek  words  £aj/  [ean]  and  i^n  {me)  I 


22  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

original  word  translated  ivasliing  is  (iairriffjioiy^ 
ihaptismous)  BAPTISMS.  The  word  rendered 
tables  is  it\ivai  {hlinai\  which,  as  all  admit, 
denotes  the  couches  on  which  the  Jews  re- 
clined at  their  meals.  The  beds  on  which 
they  slept,  were  indeed  small  and  light,  and 
easily  carried  about.  But  these  table-couches' 
consisted  of  a  large  frame  of  wood  covered 
with  mats  or  cushions,  made  as  high  as  their 
tables,  and  of  sufficient  size  to  admit  three 
persons  to  recline  on  them  at  full  length. 
Here,  then,  we  have  the  ha2otism  of  tcible- 
couches^  and  the  question  is,  How  was  it  per- 
formed ?  As  it  was  merely  traditional,  the 
mode  of  it  cannot  be  determined  by  the 
Mosaic  law.  But  can  any  one  suppose  that 
every  Jew,  in  summer  and  winter,  in  con- 
formity to  tradition,  was  obliged  to  take 
these  heavy  articles  of  furniture  to  a  pool  or 
river,  quite  distant  from  his  dwelling,  per- 
haps, and  plunge  them  under  water  ?  The 
idea  is  perfectly  ridiculous.  This  baptizing 
of  tables  was  done  simply  with  a  wet  cloth 
or  sponge  filled  with  water  ;  and  we  see 
again  that  the  word  haptism^  as  used  by  Mark, 
does  not  mean  immersion. 

THE    saviour's   BLOODY   BAPTISM. 

Alluding  to  his  final  sufferings,  Christ 
said  to  his  disciples,  "  I  have  a  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with  ;  and  how  am  I  straitened 
till  it  be  accomplished."  Luke  xii.  50.     See, 


THE  saviour's  BLOODY  BAPTISM.        23 

also,  Matt.  xx.  22,  23.  The  language  here 
used  applies  with  great  force  to  his  agony 
in  the  garden,  when  "  his  sweat  was,  as  it 
were,  great  drops  of  blood,"  as  also  to  the 
dreadful  wounds  inflicted  on  him,  by  which 
his  sacred  body  was  all  stained  with  blood. 
Here  none  but  the  wildest  imagination  can 
perceive  anything  like  an  immersion.  I  may 
add  that  all  the  early  christian  writers  were 
accustomed  to  speak  of  the  martyrs,  as 
"  baptized  with  their  own  blood."  They 
certainly  did  not  mean  immersed  in  their 
own  blood. 

Our  Baptist  friends,  of  course,  try  to  make 
out  an  immersion  in  this  case.  They  say 
that  the  word  baptizCj  as  applied  to  the  Sa- 
viour's sufferings,  has  the  sense  of  overvjhelm. 
But  the  idea  conveyed  by  that  word  is 
materially  different  from  that  of  dipping. 
When  a  person  is  dipped,  he  is  plunged 
downward  upon  and  into  some  element ;  but 
where  he  is  overwhelmed,  the  element  comes 
down  over  and  upon  him.  Even  the  root 
wlielm  is  used  in  this  sense  by  the  old  poet, 
Spenser. 

*'  They,  by  commandment  of  Diana,  there 
Her  whelmed  with  stones." 

They  did  not  plunge  her  into  or  among 
the  stones,  but  threw  the  stones  upon  her. 
Still  more  definitely  does  the  compound 
word  over-whelm  denote  the  descent  of  mat- 
ters u;pon  an  object  from  a  higher  station  or 


24  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

place.  "When  we  speak  of  caravans  in  the 
desert  as  ovenvhelmed  with  shov/ers  of  sand, 
or  of  towns  overwhelmed  with  the  ashes  of 
a  volcano,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  caravans 
are  dipped  in  sand,  or  that  the  towns  are 
plunged  into  the  ashes.  So  far  as  we  can  see 
therefore,  though  Luke  xii.  80  should  be 
rendered,  "  I  have  an  overwhelming  to  be 
overwhelmed  with,"  it  would  not  aid  the 
cause  of  immersion. 


DIVEES  BAPTISMS. 

In  Heb.  ix.  10,  the  sacred  writer,  speaking 
of  the  ceremonial  law,  says,  "  Which  stood 
only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  wash- 
ings, and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them 
■until  the  time  of  reformation."  The  word 
rendei'ed  washings,  is  (iairrianois  (haptismois) 
BAPTISMS.  And  here  let  me  invite  atten- 
tion to  three  things  which  help  to  illustrate 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  this  connection. 

1.  The  inspired  writer  uses  the  word  bap- 
tisms to  express  all  the  various  personal 
purifications  required  by  the  Jewish  law, 
among  which  there  were  many  sprinklings. 

2.  In  no  instance  did  the  law  require  a 
personal  immersion.  The  utmost  that  was 
enjoined  upon  the  unclean  was,  that  he  ivash^ 
or  bathe  his  flesh  in  water.  In  every  instance 
in  which  this  injunction  occurs,  the  term 
corresponding  to  tvash  and  bathe  is  vm 
"  rahatz,''^  the  generic  Hebrew  word  for  wash- 


NOAH  SAVED  BY  WATER.  25 

ing.  Rahatz  never  has  the  specific  sense  of 
dipping,  the  word  for  that  purpose  being  '?3a 
"  tabaV  It  is  also  important  to  observe 
that  the  usual  mode  of  bathing  in  Eastern 
countries  is  not  by  immersion,  but  by  pour- 
ing or  dashing  water  on  the  body,  as  all  tra- 
vellers assure  us."^ 

3.  The  only  examples  of  these  "  divers 
baptisms,"  adduced  by  the  sacred  writer, 
are  sprinklings.  "  For,"  says  he,  "  if  the ' 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of 
an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth 
to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much 
more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,"  &c.,  verses 
13,  14.  See  also  verses  19,  21.  So  plain  is 
it  that,  according  to  the  writer  of  this  Epistle, 
sprinkling  is  baptism. 

NOAH   SAVED   BY   WATER. 

Our  Baptist  friends  lay  great  stress  on  the 
salvation  of  Noah  and  his  family  by  water. 
1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21.     "  Eight  souls  were  saved 

^  See  Stephens's  Travels,  Lieut.  Lynch's  Expedition, 
Prime's  Travels.  See  also  Homer's  Odyssey,  Book  X. 
The  difficulty,  if  not  impracticability,  of  immersion  in  most 
cases  in  which  the  law  required  bathing,  will  be  obvious 
to  any  one  who  will  examine  the  law  of  defilement  by 
contact,  found  in  Lev.  xi.  31 — 46.  During  the  greater 
part  of  the  year,  but  few  of  the  Jews  could  have  ac- 
cess to  ''  running  streams,"  of  a  size  suitable  for  immer- 
sion. And  if  the  unclean  person  should  dip  himself  in 
any  vessel,  not  only  the  water,  but  the  vessel  itself  would 
be'defiled,  and  the  latter  must  undergo  a  purification  in 
water. 
3 


26  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

by  water.  The  like  figure  whereiinto  even 
baptism  doth  also  now  save  us."  The  apos- 
tle's idea  is  this :  as  Noah  was  saved  from 
destruction  by  the  water  which  bore  up  the 
ark  on  its  bosom,  so  now  the  thing  signified 
by  the  water  of  baptism  saves  us  from  eternal 
perdition.  But  Noah  was  not  immersed. 
He  rode  secure  above  the  raging  flood.  He 
was  also  sheltered  from  the  descending  rains. 
"Where  then  do  we  find  any  example  of  im- 
mersion ?  Nowhere,  except  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  unbelieving  world,  who  were 
plunged  beneath  the  waves. 

THE   BAPTISM   IN   THE   CLOUD   AND   IN   THE 
SEA. 

We  are  told,  in  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2,  that  the 
Israelites  "  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in 
the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  But  how  were 
they  baptized  ?  By  immersion  ?  Did  Paul 
mean  to  say  that  they  were  dipped  or 
plunged  into  the  sea  ?  Assuredly  not ;  for 
Moses  informs  us  that  they  "  went  into  the 
midst  of  the  sea  upon  the  dry  ground." 
Pharaoh's  ungodly  host  were  indeed  im- 
mersed with  a  vengeance;  but  they  were  not 
baptized.  "And  the  waters  returned  and 
covered  the  chariots  and  the  horsemen,  and 
all  the  host  of  Pharaoh."  Ex.  xiv.  28.  Some 
light  is  thrown  upon  the  baptism  of  the  Is- 
raelites by  Asaph's  sublime  and  beautiful 
description  of  the  passage  of  the  lied  Sea : 


IN  THE   CLOUD  AND  IX   THE   SEA.        27 

"  The  waters  saw  thee,  0  God ;  the  waters 
saw  thee ;  they  were  afraid ;  the  depths  also 
were  troubled.  The  clouds  poured  out  water." 
Ps.  Ixxvii.  15 — 20.  It  seems  then,  that  they 
were  sprinkled  or  perfused  with  rain  from 
the  cloud,  and  with  the  spray  of  the  sea 
foaming  around  them. 

How  do  our  Baptist  friends  make  out  an 
immersion  here  ?  Do  they  say  that  the  Is- 
raelites were  plunged  into  the  sea  ?  No  ;  but 
they  say  that  there  was  a  wall  of  water  on 
each  side  of  them,  and  a  cloud  above,  before, 
and  behind  them  ;  and  tbus  they  were  bap- 
tized without  a  drop  touching  them !  Are 
they  not  sensible  of  the  absolute  ridiculous- 
ness of  the  conceit  ?  Will  they  say  that  a 
man  can  be  truly  baptized  by  walking  be- 
tween two  hogsheads  of  water  in  a  cloudy 
day  ?^ 

I  shall  merely  add,  that  admitting,  as  our 
opponents  do,  that  this  baptism  was  a  type 
of  christian  baptism,  they  ought,  by  no 
means,  to  refuse  that  ordinance  to  little 
children,  since  the  Israelites  were  "  all  bap- 
tized." infants  as  well  as  adults. 


*  Dr.  Carson,  (p.  413,)  speaking  of  Moses  in  the  Red 
Sea,  says,  "  Yes,  and  he  got  a  dry  dip.  And  could  not 
a  person  literally  covered  with  oil-cloth  get  a  dry  im- 
mersion in  water?"  I  may  add  that  w^eak  and  sickly 
persons  might  be  submerged  in  a  diving-bell,  or  in  one 
of  '•  Francis's  metallic  life-cars,"  but  would  our  brethren 
admit  that  to  be  valid  baptism  ? 


28  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Evasion  of  Immersionists — Judith  baptized  at  a  Foun- 
tain— The  Greek  Fathers — Kataduo,  to  plunge — 
Authority  of  the  Pagan  Classics — Greek  of  the  N.  T. 
a  pecuhar  idiom — Technical  religious  terms — Bapto — 
The  Lexicons — Ancient  versions — Tmgo. 

Our  Baptist  brethren,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  insist  that  the  word  panrt^co  (baptizo,) 
always  means  to  dip  or  immerse.  In  the  pre- 
vious chapter,  we  undertook  to  try  their  as- 
sertion by  scripture  and  common  sense,  tests 
which  are  available  alike  to  all.  The  mean- 
ing of  words,  which  often  occur  in  a  book, 
may  commonly  be  determined  by  the  con- 
nection in  which  they  stand.  In  this  way 
we  have  made  it  apparent,  from  several  ex- 
amples, that  the  word  hcqdizo^  as  used  by  the 
sacred  writers,  cannot  have  the  sense  of  dip- 
ping.    Particularly,  we  have  shown 

1.  That  the  baptism  with  the  Iloly  Ghost 
and  with  fire,  was  not  a  dipping  in  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  in  the  fire. 

2.  That  the  baptism  practised  by  the 
Pharisees  before  meals,  was  not  a  dipping 
of  themselves. 


USELESS  EVASION  OF   IMMEKSIONISTS.     29 

3.  That  the  baptism  of  table- couches,  was 
not  a  plunging  of  those  articles  under  water. 

4.  That  of  the  "divers  washings"  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  styled,  by  the  sacred  writer,  Z^o^)- 
tisms,  not  one  required  an  immersion  of  the 
person,  and  the  greater  part  of  them  were 
performed  by  sprmkling. 

5.  That  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the 
Eed  Sea,  was  not  a  dipping  in  the  cloud  and 
the  sea. 

USELESS  EVASION   OF   IMMERSIONISTS. 

Pressed  with  arguments  like  these,  our 
Baptist  brethren  are  compelled  to  shift  their 
ground.  They  af&rm  that  the  word  paTrri^cj 
{baptizo\  in  most  of  the  instances  referred 
to,  is  used  figuratively,  and  therefore  has 
not  its  customary  meaning.  Strange,  indeed  ! 
Wherever  it  suits  their  purpose,  they  will 
have  it  to  mean  dijp  ;  but  where  such  a  ren- 
dering would  shock  common  sense,  they  de- 
cide that  the  word  is  used  figuratively !  But 
even  this  subterfuge  will  not  avail  them,  for 
in  figurative  expressions,  words  always  retain 
their  proper  signification  ;  and  if  they  do  not, 
they  possess  no  force  or  beauty.  Thus,  when 
we  say,  "  The  clouds  pour  out  water,"  and 
"  The  sun  sinks  in  the  western  wave,"  the 
idea  of  pouring,  in  the  one  case,  and  that  of 
sinking,  in  the  other,  is  brought  distinctly 
before  the  mind.  If,  therefore,  the  word  bap- 
tize^ as  used  by  the  sacred  writers  in  figurative 
expressions,  does  not  convey  the  idea  of  dip- 
3* 


30  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

ping,  the  natural  inference  is,  that  it  has 
no  such  signification  in  any  part  of  their 
writings. 

We  always  prefer  to  test  the  meaning  of 
a  scripture  word,  where  it  can  be  done,  by 
scripture  itself.  This  is  undoubtedly  the 
safest  and  surest  method  to  arrive  at  the 
truth.  Our  Baptist  friends,  however,  refer 
us  to  uninspired  Greek  authors,  as  umpires 
in  this  controversy.  Let  us  see,  then,  whether 
these  authors  will  sustain  their  position. 

JUDITH   BAPTIZED  AT  A  FOUNTAIN". 

The  authors  of  the  Apocrypha  were  Jews, 
and  we  may  therefore  expect  to  find  them 
using  religious  terms  in  pretty  much  the 
same  sense  as  did  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament.  They  employ  the  word  0anri;oi 
ihaptizo)  in  just  two  instances,  in  both  of 
which  it  is  applied  to  a  religious  ceremony. 
The  first  is  where  it  is  related  of  Judith  that 
"  she  went  out  in  the  night,  into  the  valley 
of  Bethulia,  and  washed  herself  e0a7rri;crff 
(ebaptizeto)  in  a  fountain  of  water  by  the 
camp."  A  literal  translation  from  the  Greek 
would  be,  "  She  baptized  herself  in  the  camp, 
at  a  fountain  of  water."  Judith  xii.  7.* 
This  ceremony,  as  appears  from  the  context, 

*  The  words  of  the  orif^inal  are,  Kal  ipairri^ero  tv  rif 
iTapt^0o\^  cTTi  rfji  TrrjY'is  tov  tijaroj  {kdi  cbaptizeto  €71  tc paveni' 
bole  epi  tes  peges  lou  kudatos.) 


AFTER  TOUCHING  A  DEAD  BODY.   31 

she  deemed  necessary  as  a  preparation  for 
prayer.  The  fountain  at  which  she  baptized 
herself  was  in  possession  of  the  Assyrian 
soldiers  ;  for  we  are  told  in  chapter  vii. 
verse  3,  that  "  they  camped  in  the  valley, 
near  unto  Bethulia,  by  the  fountain."  And 
verse  7  of  the  same  chapter  states  that  they 
set  garrisons  over  the  fountains.  Now  can 
any  one  suppose  that  this  refined,  high-born 
lady,  even  with  the  appliance  of  the  stone 
trough  suggested  by  Dr.  Carson,  would  dis- 
robe in  the  presence  of  the  soldiers,  and  im- 
merse herself?  Believe  it  who  can  !  She 
simply  washed  her  face,  hands,  and  feet,  and 
for  her  assistance  therein  required  the  at- 
tendance of  her  maid.  Rabbi  Maimonides, 
whom  the  Jews  esteem  inferior  only  to  Moses, 
gives  the  following  account :  "  A  man  must 
wash  his  hands  up  to  the  elbow,  and  after 
that  pray.  They  do  not  make  clean  for 
prayer  but  the  hands  only,  in  the  rest  of 
prayers,  except  the  morning  prayer.  But 
before  the  morning  prayer,  a  man  washes  his 
face,  his  hands,  and  his  feet,  and  after  that 
prays." — Burder^s  Or.  Customs, 

THE     BAPTISM     AFTER     TOUCHING    A    DEAD 
BODY. 

The  word  panri^o}  (ha2:)tizo)  occurs  also  in 
Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  25.  "  He  that  washeth 
himself  (^aTrn^oiitvoi  {hai^tizomenos)  after  the 
touching  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again, 


32  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

what  availeth  his  washing  f"*  \ovTpov  {loutron). 
Here  the  word  bcq^tizo  is  used  in  the  sense 
of  washing,  pairri;onevos  {ha2:)tizomenos)  being 
explained  by  loutron.  The  allusion  is  to  the 
law  for  the  purification  of  those  who  were 
defiled  by  touching  a  dead  body.  Numb. 
xix.  16-20.     Yerses  19  and  20  read  thus  : 

"And  the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle 
upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on 
the  seventh  day ;  and  on  the  seventh  day 
he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his  clothes 
and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall  be 
clean  at  even.  But  the  man  that  shall  be 
unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  himself,  that 
soul  shall  be  cut  oft'  from  among  the  con- 
gregation, because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanc- 
tuary of  the  Lord :  the  water  of  separation 
hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him." 

It  is  certain  that  sprinkling  was  an  essen- 
tial part  of  this  hajotism ;  and  we  have 
shown  that  an  immersion  of  the  whole  per- 
son was  in  no  instance  required  by  the  law. 
The  word  translated  hathe  in  the  above  pas- 
sage is  vnT  (rahatz,)  which  never  specifically 
means  dip.  Where  it  is  said  of  Joseph  that 
he  washed  his  face,  and  of  his  brethren  that 
they  washed  their  feet,  and  of  Ahab's  servants 
that  they  washed  his  chariot,  and  in  a  multi- 
tude of  other  instances,  the  word  used  is 
rahatz.  On  the  whole  it  is  apparent  that 
what  the  son  of  Sirach  styled  a  haptizing^ 
was  not  a  dipping^  but  a  ceremonial  clean- 
sing, the  most  important  part  of  which  was 


WRITINGS   OF  THE   GREEK  FATHERS.  33 

sprinkling.  Accordingly  the  unclean  per- 
son, who  neglected  to  comply  with  the  law, 
was  threatened  with  excision ;  not  because 
he  had  not  bathed,  but  "  because  the  water 
of  separation  had  not  been  sprinkled  upon 
him." 

WRITINGS  OF  THE  GREEK  FATHERS. 

The  Greek  christians  of  the  first  centu- 
ries would  naturally  follow  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  in  their  use  of  religious  terms. 
It  may  therefore  be  well  to  inquire  whether 
they  always  use  the  word  Panri^cj  {baptizo) 
in  the  sense  of  dipping. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  most  re- 
nowned christian  writer  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, has  the  following : 

"  And  this,  it  would  seem,  is  the  image  of 
baptism,  panrianaTog  {baptismatos\  which  from 
Moses  has  been  handed  down  by  the  poets ; 
after  this  manner.     Penelope, 

*  In  waters  washed,  and  clad  in  vestments  pure,' 
goes  forth  to  prayer.    But  Telemachus, 
'  Laving  his  hands  in  the  gray  sea,  to  Pallas  prayed.' 

*'  This  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  that 
they  also  should  be  often  baptized  on  their 
couch."  £Ti  KoirjiPaT:ri;£cr9ai  {epi  Icoite  haptizesthai) 
— Sirow.at.  lib.  4.  I  leave  it  to  the  reader  to 
judge  whether  this  writer  meant  immersed 
on  their  couch."^ 

*  Dr.  Carson  is  greatly  troubled  with  this  extract. 


34  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

Origen,  another  Greek  writer,  celebrated 
for  his  talents  and  learning,  uses  the  word 
(3a7TTi;(o  (bajotizo)  to  describe  the  pouring  of  the 
water  upon  the  wood,  by  order  of  Elijah. 
His  language  is  as  follows  : 

"  IIow  came  you  to  think  that  Elias,  when 
he  should  come,  would  baptize,  who  did  not 
in  AhaVs  time  baptize  the  wood  upon  the 
altar,  which  was  to  be  washed  before  it  was 
burnt  by  the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire  ?  But 
he  ordered  the  priests  to  do  that  ;  not  once 
only,  but  says.  Do  it  the  second  time,  and 
they  did  it  the  second  time :  and  Do  it  the 
third  time  ;  and  they  did  it  the  third  time. 
He,  therefore,  that  did  not  himself  baptize 
then,  but  assigned  that  work  to  others,  how 
was  he  likely  to  baptize,  when  he,  according 
to  Malachi's  prophecy,  should  come  ?"  Com- 
ment on  John. 

This  writer  says  that  Elijah  assigned  to 
the  priests  the  work  of  baptizing  the  wood  ; 
and  how  was  the  baptizing  done?  The 
sacred  historian  says,    "  And   he    put    the 

His  far  fetched  interpretation  of  im  koWij  {cpi  koitc)  wiiich 
he  renders  -post  concubitm,  never  entered  the  mind  of  the 
refined  and  accomplished  writer.  ITervetiis  savs  that 
the  remark  of  Clemen!  relates  to  the  tal)le-conch,  and  refers 
us  to  Mark  vii.  4.  Xenophon,  in  his  Memorabilia,  uses 
Koirri  [koite]  for  table-conch.  There  are  numerous  exam- 
pk'S  of  £ri  {ep})  governinfi:  a  Dative,  and  having  the  sense 
of  upmi,  in,  and  at ;  as  Ilom.  Iliad.  I.  88,  ini  xOovl  [epi 
chihoni),  "  on  the  ground."'  Acts  ii.  26,  (^'  ^Xti^.  [ep* 
elpuli),  "  in  hope  ;"  Acts  iii.  10,  ItI  t!)  wpaU  Trv\i]{cpi  te 
Horaia  pule),  "  at  the  Beautiful  gate." 


WRITINGS  OF  THE  GREEK  FATHERS.      85 

wood  in  order,  and  cut  the  bullock  in  pieces, 
and  laid  it  on  the  wood,  and  said,  Fill  four 
barrels  with  water,  and  pour  it  on  the  burnt 
sacrifice  and  on  the  wood,"  &c. ;  1  Kings 
xviii.  33.  Here  again,  dipping  is  quite  out 
of  the  question. 

The  same  writer,  having  quoted  the  lan- 
guage of  our  Saviour,  "  I  have  a  baptism  to 
be  baptized  with,"  &c.,  remarks :  "  You  see 
therefore  that  he  calls  the  shedding  of  his 
blood  a  baptism." — Horn.  7,  on  Judges  vi. 

John  Damascenus  : — "John  (Baptist)  was 
baptized  {ebaptizeto)  by  placing  his  hand  on 
the  head  of  his  divine  Master,  and  by  his 
own  blood."— Yol.  I.  p.  261,  Paris,  1712. 

Again,  this  writer  speaks  of  "  the  baptism 
0a7rri<jfxa  [haptismo)  by  blood  and  martyrdom 
by  which  Christ  was  baptized  iffaizTiWo  (ebap- 
tizeto) for  us," — Ibid. 

Athanasius  mentions  eight  several  bap- 
tisms, of  which  one  is  the  baptism  of  Moses 
in  the  sea,  another  is  the  ceremonial  clean- 
sing practised  by  the  Jews,  and  another  is 
the  baptism  of  tears. 

Gregory  Nazianzen : — "I  know  of  a 
fourth  baptism,  that  by  martyrdom  and 
blood  ;  and  I  know  of  a  fifth,  that  of  tears." 

If  these  learned  fathers  understood  their 
OAvn  mother  tongue,  then  the  purifications 
practised  by  the  Jews  in  bed,  the  pouring 
of  water  upon  the  altar,  the  flowing  of  tears 
over  the  face,  and  of  blood  over  the  body, 
are  all  correctly  expressed  by  the  Greek 


86  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

words,  ^anriw  (ba2')tiz6)  and  HanTiana  (baptisma.) 
And  yet  our  Baptist  brethren  assert  that 
these  words  always  imply  dipping ;  and  on 
the  strength  of  that  assertion,  proceed  to  un- 
church nine  tenths  of  Protestant  Christen- 
dom ! 

KATAAYJl  (kafaduo)  TO  PLUNGE. 

Another  important  fact  may  be  noticed  in 
this  connection.  The  Greek  christians,  so 
soon  as  immersion  came  to  be  generally  prac- 
tised, felt  the  need  of  a  word  which  would  defi- 
nitely express  that  particular  mode  of  bap- 
tism. BaTrrtV  {haptizo)  would  uot  answer  their 
purpose,  because  in  common  usage  it  was 
applied  to  any  kind  of  religious  washing, 
however  partial.  Accordingly  they  adopted 
the  word  Kara^vw  {kataduo)  and  its  derivatives 
to  express  an  immersion  in  water.  We  give 
a  few  examples : 

Basil  : — "  By  three  immersions  ti^  rpiax  Kara- 
hvatdi  {en  trisi  hatadusesi)  and  by  the  like 
number  of  invocations,  the  great  mystery  of 
baptism  is  completed." — De  Spirit,  c.  15. 

John  Damascenus  : — "  Baptism  is  a  type 
of  the  death  of  Christ;  for  by  tliree  immer- 
sions KaraivaMv  (kataduseon,)  baptism  signi- 
fies," &c.,  Orthod.  Fid.  IV.  10. 

PiiOTius: — "To  immerse  Karaivfrai  (kotadn- 
sai)  a  child  three  times  in  the  bath,  and  to 
draw  him  out  airain,  dvaiiaat  (^avadnsai),  this 
shows  the  death," — &c.,  Quest,  apud  AtJien. 
Qu.  94. 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  PAGAN  CLASSICS.    37 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem : — "Plunge  them  down 
Kara6v£Tt  {hatadnete)  thrice  into  the  water,  and 
raise  them  up  again." — See  Stuart  on  Bap- 
tism. 

Now  if  these  Greek  writers  believed  that 
/SaTrH^o)  (baptizo)  expressed  definitely  the  act  of 
immersion,  why  did  they  select  other  words  to 
express  that  action,  and  employ  Panrtw  {hap- 
tizo)  in  cases  where  there  was  no  immersion  ? 

AUTHORITY   OF   THE   PAGAN  CLASSICS. 

Baptist  writers  assert  that  the  Greek  clas- 
sical authors  used  the  word /JaTri^co  {haptizo)  in- 
variably in  the  sense  of  dip  ;  and  further 
that  the  apostles  wrote  in  classical  Greek, 
and  must  therefore  have  used  the  word  in 
that  precise  sense. 

These  brethren  are  very  apt  to  assert 
what  they  cannot  prove.  No  ripe  Biblical 
scholar  at  this  day  will  admit  that  the  New 
Testament  is  written  in  classical  Greek. 
The  idiom  is  Hebrew,  and  though  the  words 
are  Greek,  they  are  very  often  employed  in 
senses  quite  unknown  to  classical  antiquity. 
Of  this  fact,  many  hundred  examples  might 
be  produced.  Indeed  all  the  Jews  who 
wrote  in  Greek  (except  Josephus  who  wrote 
professedly  for  the  Gentiles,  and  affected  a 
classical  style)  used  Hebrew  idioms,  and  em- 
ployed words  in  senses  quite  opposed  to 
classical  usage.  In  this  particular  the  apos- 
tles seem  to  have  followed  those  writers  of 
4 


38  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

their  nation  who  preceded  them.  They 
wrote  in  what  may  be  called  Jewish  Greeks 
and  deviated  almost  as  far  from  classic 
purity  as  American  German  varies  from  the 
language  of  Goethe  and  Schiller.  Origen, 
Chrysostom,  and  other  Greek  Fathers  admit 
the  charge  of  homeliness  urged  in  their  day 
against  the  style  of  the  apostles,  and  turn 


NEW  TESTAMENT   GREEK  A  PECULIAR   IDIOM. 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  a  decided  immer- 
sionist  in  theory,  and  a  high  authority  with 
the  Baptists,  speaking  of  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  remarks  : 

"  But  with  the  greatest  justice,  it  is  denom- 
inated a  peculiar  idiom,  being  not  only 
Hebrew  and  Chaldaic  phrases  put  in  Greek 
words,  but  even  single  Greek  words  used  in 
senses  in  which  they  never  occur  in  the 
writings  of  profane  authors,  and  which  can 
be  learnt  only  from  the  extent  of  significa- 
tion given  to  some  Hebrew  or  Chaldaic  word, 
corresponding  to  the  Greek  in  its  primitive 
and  most  ordinary  sense."  Prelim.  Diss.  I. 
Part  I.     Sec.  15. 

The  same  distinguished  critic  again  re- 
marks : 

"Though  the  words,  therefore,  are  Greek, 
Jewish  erudition    is  of  more  service  than 

*  Orig.  Pbiloc.  c.  IV.     Chrys.  Horn.  3  in  1  Cor.  i. 


N.  T.  GREEK  A  PECULIAR  IDIOM.        89 

Grecian,  for  bringing  us  to  the  true  accepta- 
tion of  them  in  the  sacred  writings.  Would 
you  know  the  full  import  of  the  words 
ay(a(7//oj  (Jiagiasmos)  for  example,  and  StKaiotjvvrj 
{dikaiosune,)  in  the  New  Testament  ?  It  will 
be  in  vain  to  rummage  the  classics.  Turn 
to  the  pages  of  the  Old  Testament.  Examine 
the  extent  given  to  the  signification  of  the 
Hebrew  roots,  tpip  kadash,  and  p^y  tsadak,^^  &c. 

"  Classical  use  both  in  Greek  and  in  Latin 
is  not  only,  in  this  study,  sometimes  un- 
available, but  may  even  mislead.  The  sacred 
use  and  the  classical  are  often  very  differ ent^ 
Prelim.  Diss.  I.  Pai't  II.  Sec.  1  and  2. 

Ernesti,  as  published  by  Professor  Stuart, 
testifies  as  follows  : 

"  We  deny  without  hesitation  that  the 
diction  of  the  New  Testament  is  pure  Greek, 
and  contend  that  it  is  modelled  after  the 
Hebrew,  not  only  in  single  words,  phrases, 
and  figures  of  speech,  but  in  the  general 
texture  of  the  language. 

"  Many  parts  of  the  New  Testament  can 
be  explained  in  no  other  way  than  by  means 
of  the  Hebrew.  Moreover,  in  many  pas- 
sages there  would  arise  an  absurd  and  ridicu- 
lous meaning  if  they  should  be  interpreted 
according  to  a  pure  Greek  idiom,  as  appears 
from  the  examples  produced  by  Werenfels," 
&c. — Ernesti   pp.  56,  57. 

"  Classical  usage,"  says  Professor  Stuart, 
"can  never  be  very  certain  in  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  a  word  in  the  New  Testament. 


40  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

Who  does  not  know  that  a  multitude  of 
Greek  words  have  received  their  colourins^ 
and  particular  meaning  from  the  Hebrew, 
and  not  from  the  Greek  classics  ?  Do  etos 
(theos)   God,    oipavds    {puranos)    HEAVEN,    mipi 

(sarx)     FLESH,     TTiffrif     (j^istcs)     FAITH,     6iKatO(rvi>n 

(cUkawsune)  RIGHTEOUSNESS,  and  other  words 
almost  without  number,  exhibit  meanings 
which  conform  to  the  Greek  classics,  or 
which  in  several  respects  can  even  be  illus- 
trated by  them?  Not  at  all.  Then,  how 
can  you  be  over-confident  in  the  application 
of  the  classical  meaning  of  PaTrriw  {bajotizo) 
where  the  word  is  employed  in  relation  to  a 
rite  that  is  purely  christian  ?  Such  a  confi- 
dence is  indeed  too  common  ;  but  it  is  not 
the  more  rational,  nor  the  more  becoming, 
on  that  account." 

TECHNICAL  KELIGIOUS  TERMS. 

It  is,  moreover,  to  be  observed  that  the 
pagan  Greeks  never  used  PanTi;a)  (ba2:itizo) 
with  reference  to  religious  washings,  but 
always  with  reference  to  the  common  affairs 
of  life.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Jewish 
writers  (except  Josephus,  who  wrote  only 
for  the  pagans)  never  applied  the  word  to 
the  common  affairs  of  life,  but  always  to  re- 
ligious washings.  Now,  it  is  well  known 
tliat  words  liavc  one  meaning  as  applied  to 
common  matters,  and  anotlier  quite  different 
meaning  as  applied  to  matters  of  religion. 


SCRIPTURE   ITS   OWN  INTERPRETER.      41 

The  English  word  communicate^  for  instance, 
in  common  usage  signifies  ^o^mpar^  to  others; 
in  a  religions  sense  it  nieans  to  partake  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Take  another  example. 
The  word  conversation^  in  its  common  ac- 
ceptation, TUQSins  familiar  discourse;  in  reli- 
gion, it  signifies  conduct,  deportment.  The 
same  general  remark  will  apply  to  all  lan- 
guages and  religions.  Now,  as  the  apostles 
always  used  the  word  haptizo  in  a  religious 
sense,  it  follows  that  its  use  by  the  heathen 
writers  is  not  a  safe  guide  to  its  meaning  in 
the  JSTew  Testament. 

SCRIPTURE   ITS  OWN  INTERPRETER. 

How,  then,  it  will  be  asked,  are  we  to  as- 
certain the  meaning  of  religious  terms  in  the 
scriptures  ?  I  answer.  Chiefly  by  scripture 
itself.  Take,  for  example,  the  word  srmvov  y- 
{deipnon)  SUPPER,  found  in  1  Cor.  xi.  20. 
This  word,  in  its  classical  acceptation,  signi- 
fies a  full  meal,  taken  for  bodily  nourish- 
ment. But  is  that  the  meaning  here  ?  By 
looking  at  the  connection  we  find,  on  the 
contrary,  that  it  means  the  participation  of 
a  small  portion  of  bread  and  wine,  in  remem- 
brance of  Christ.  So,  also,  with  the  word 
haptizo.  We  have  already  produced  several 
instances  in  the  New  Testament  where,  from 
the  connection  in  which  it  stands,  it  is  plain 
that  it  cannot  signify  to  dip.  We  freely 
admit  that  the  word,  in  the  heathen  classics, 
4* 


42  THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

does  usually  signify  to  immerse^  or  rather  to 
sink  to  the  bottom.  But  this  is  not  always 
the  case,  as  will  appear  from  a  few  examples. 

Plutarch,  speaking  of  a  Roman  general 
who  was  wounded  in  battle,  says,  "  He  set 
up  a  trophy,  on  which,  having  baptized  his 
hand,  paTrricas  r'nv  x^^pa  {bcqAiscis  ten  cheira),  he 
wrote  this  inscription,"  &;c.  He  did  not 
dip  his  hand  in  blood,  but  only  moistened 
his  fingers  with  it,  in  order  to  write. 

Hippocrates  directs  a  patient,  if  his  blister 
plaster  should  be  too  painful,  ''  to  baptize  it 
with  breast-milk  or  Egyptian  ointment.''  He 
did  not  mean  that  it  should  be  immersed  in 
breast-milk. 

Thais,  the  courtezan,  is  spoken  of  as 
"  having  baptized  panriaaaa  (haptisasa)  Alex- 
ander with  much  wine."  Cono.  Narrat.  bO. 
Surely  she  did  not  immerse  him  in  a  cask 
of  wine. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  rash- 
ness of  those  who  affirm  that  the  Greek  clas- 
sical authors  always  used  hcq^tizo  in  the  sense 
of  dipping^  that  the  apostles  wrote  in  classical 
Greek,  and  that  they  used  the  word  in  the 
classical  sense.  We  have  seen  that  all  these 
assertions  are  equally  groundless ;  and  yet, 
upon  so  airy  a  foundation,  the  Baptists  build 
their  assumption  that  immersion  is  essential 
to  valid  baptism,  and  boast  that  they  are  the 
only  baptized  christians,  and  the  only  worthy 
communicants  on  earth  ! 


THE  WORD   BAHTfl.  43 


THE  WORD   BAHTil   {Bajpto) 

This  word  is  the  root  of  haptizo.  It  is 
often  referred  to  by  Baptist  writers,  as  af- 
fording evidence  of  the  meaning  of  haptizo. 
But  it  is  never  once  applied  to  the  ordinance 
of  christian  baptism,  and  therefore  has  no 
necessary  connection  with  the  present  discus- 
sion. It  may  however  be  agreeable  to  the 
reader  to  see  some  examples  of  the  use  of 
the  word. 

It  occurs  in  Eev.  xix.  13.  "  And  he  was 
clothed  with  a  vesture  pePafinhov  (hebammenon) 
with  blood."  Origen,  in  quoting  the  sub- 
stance of  this  passage,  uses  the  word  cppavTicixhov 
(errhantismenon)  SPRINKLED,  as  expressive  of 
the  meaning  in  this  place.  Did  he  not  un- 
derstand his  mother  tongue?  It  is  also  re- 
markable that  the  Baptist  Bible  Union,  in 
the  specimen  of  the  new  version  they  have 
given  the  world,  render  the  words,  "  stained 
with  blood." 

I  will  just  add  two  other  examples  taken 
from  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  book  of 
Daniel.  The  one  is  found  in  chapter  iv.  33, 
and  the  other  in  chapter  v.  21.  In  both 
places  the  same  language  occurs,  viz:  "his 
body  ipdipri  (ehaphe)  with  the  dew  of  heaven." 
Common  sense  will  determine  whether  by 
immersion  or  sprinkling.* 

*  Although  the  term  bapto  is  never  applied  to  the 
ordiuance  of  baptism,  the  reader  may  be  curious  to  see 


44  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


THE  LEXICONS. 

In  support  of  their  position,  that  haptizo 
means  to  dip^  our  opponents  betake  them- 
selves to  the  lexicons,  or  dictionaries  of  the 
Greek  language.  We  shall  see,  however, 
that  though  the  lexicons,  for  the  most  part, 
simply  give  the  meanings  of  words  in  clas- 
sical authors,  and  as  applied  in  a  sense  not 
religious,  they  will  by  no  means  sustain  the 
immersionists.  Indeed  Dr.  Carson,  the  very 
Goliath  of  the  party,  after  asserting  that 
haptizo  "  always  means  to  dip,"  confesses  that 
"  all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators 
are  against  him  in  that  opinion."  On  Bapt. 
p.  55. 

The  following  authors  of  lexicons,  among 
other  definitions  of  haptizo^  give  wash  and 
cleanse: 

Scapula,  Hedericus,  Stephanus,  Schreve- 

some  examples  of  its  use  iu  ckissical  authors ;  and  we 
subjoin  a  few. 

Aristotle,  speaking  of  a  berry,  says,  ''  When  rubbed, 
M  (iaiTTu  {baptei)  the  hand."     De  Anim. 

Aristophanes,  referring  to  a  comedian,  says,  he  "  was 
paiTTd^ici'os  [haptomenos)  of  a  frog-colour."  Equites. 
523. 

'•  It  {baptei)  the  hair."     Diosc.  Lib.  I. 

"  Some  say,  0  Nicylla,  that  you  /i.iTrrcn/  (baptein)  your 
hair."  Epig.  Coll.  Bent,  cum  Callim.  Loud.  1741. 
p.  139. 

"  The  lake  c/?d7rr£ro  [cbapteto)  with  his  purple  blood." 
Horn.  Batrom.  218. 

Let  any  one  make  the  word  mean  dip,  m  these  exam- 
ples if  he  cau. 


THE   LEXICONS.  45 

lius,  Parkliurst,  Suidas,  Schleusner,  Grove, 
Evving,  Bretschneider,  Wall,  Stockius,  Eob- 
iuson,  and  Greenfield. 

Sl'IDAS,  one  of  the  oldest  of  them,  gives 
moisten  (madefacio)  among  the  meanings  of 
the  word. 

Schleusner  gives  immerse  (immergo)  as 
one  of  its  meanings,  but  then  adds,  "  In  this 
sense,  however,  it  is  never  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  although  it  is  so  used  rather  fre- 
quently in  Greek  authors."  He  then  adds 
the  following  meanings :  to  wash  (lavo),  to 
imbue  (imbuo),  to  pour  forth  (profundo). 

Greville  Ewing,  besides  the  usual  senses, 
gives  the  following :  "  I  cover  partially  with 
water,  I  wet."  The  same  author  assigns  the 
following  definition  to  hapto^  viz:  "  To  wet 
by  affusion,  effusion,  perfusion,  by  sprink- 
ling, daubing,  friction,  or  immersion." 

The  learned  Gases,  a  member  of  the  Greek 
church,  in  his  large  lexicon  of  ancient  Greek, 
defines  haptizo  by  I^p^xo^  {brecho\  ^ovo  (Jouo),  and 
dvTXecj  {cintleo) ;  to  wet  or  moisten^  to  ivash^  to 
draw  water.  This  lexicon  is  said  to  be  gen- 
erally used  by  the  modern  Greeks. 

No  lexicon  can  be  produced  which  does 
not  give  wash  as  a  prominent  meaning  of 
haptizo ;  and  washing,  as  every  one  knows,  is 
not  the  same  thing  as  dipping.  If  a  person 
tells  us  that  when  he  arose  in  the  morning, 
he  washed  himself,  we  do  not  take  him  to 
mean  that  he  immersed  himself.  If  we  order 
a  child  to  wash  his  face,  we  will  not  think 


46  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

of  punishing  him  if  he  does  not  dip  his  face 
in  the  water.  If  this  be  true  in  regard  to 
ordinary  washings,  much  more  is  it  true  in 
respect  to  a  religious  washing,  which  is  not 
designed  for  "  the  putting  away  of  the  filth 
of  the  flesh,"  but  for  an  emblem  or  sign  of 
inward  purity,  and  which  may,  therefore,  be 
properly  performed  by  the  application  of 
a  small  quantity  of  water. 

"  But  if  the  Saviour  did  not  command  dip- 
ping, why  did  not  the  apostles,  instead  of 
baptizo,  use  the  word  Xovw  (fowo),  which  means 
to  ivash,  without  respect  to  mode?"  I  an- 
swer, the  reasons  are  obvious,  aovo)  {Louo) 
was  a  word  which  was  constantly  applied  to 
ordinary  washings.  Bapiizo^  on  the  con- 
trary, had  long  been  employed  by  the  Jews 
in  a  sacred  sense,  to  express  washings  of  a 
religious  kind.  There  was  an  obvious  pro- 
priety therefore  in  the  selection  of  that  word 
to  designate  a  religious  ordinance. 

ANCIENT  VERSIONS. 

Some  Baptist  authors  present  us  with  a 
formidable  array  of  versions  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  they  claim  as  favouring 
the  mode  by  dipping.  But  a  strict  exami- 
nation will  make  it  appear,  that  of  all  the 
most  ancient  and  esteemed  versions,  fifteen 
or  twenty  in  number,  there  is  not  one  that 
decides  in  favour  of  immersion.  The  old 
Italic  and  Vulgate,  made  while  the  Greek  and 


ANCIENT  VEESIONS.  47 

Latin  were  yet  living  languages,  instead  of 
rendering  haptizo  by  immergo^  TO  IMMEKSE, 
simply  transfer  the  word — a  plain  proof  that 
it  was  not  understood  as  meaning  to  di}:).^ 
Of  the  others,  while  some  transfer  the  word, 
others  translate  it  by  a  word  which  signifies 
to  wash  or  cleanse;  and  one,  the  Armenian, 
by  a  term  which  means  to  bathe.  And  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Carson  himself,  "No  man 
who  understands  English  will  say  that  the 
word  dip,  and  the  word  bathe,  signify  the 
same  thing."  Page  60.  In  fact,  the  usual 
mode  of  bathing  in  Eastern  countries,  as  al- 
ready observed,  is  not  by  immersion  in  wa- 
ter, but  by  applying  water  to  the  body. 

*  It  is  useless  to  allege  the  fact  that  some  of  the  Latin 
Fathers  used  the  word  tingo,  to  designate  the  ordinance 
of  baptism ;  for  that  word  is  variously  used.  1'hus 
Ovid  has — tingere  corpijs  aqua,  sparsa,  "  to  sprinkle  the 
body  with  water."  Fast.  I  v.  790  ;  and  Horace — tingere 
pocults,  "  to  soak  with  wine."  Carm.  Lib.  lY.  Ode  XII. 
23  ;  and — mero  tinget  pavimentum,  "  stain  the  floor  with 
wine."  Carm.  Lib.  II.  Ode  XIV.  27.  And  Martial 
has — tingit  cittern,  "  paints  his  skin." 


48  THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Baptism  at  rivers — John  at  Jordan  and  JEnon — "  Much 
water" — ''  In  Jordan" — John's  baptism  superseded — 
Jesus  baptized  by  John — "  Out  of  the  water" — Pic- 
torial representations — Why  Jesus  was  baptized. 

In  tlie  course  of  this  discussion,  we  have 
suffered  ourselves  to  be  led  over  a  wide  aud 
diversified  field  of  argument.  We  are  now 
glad  to  return  to  the  holy  scriptures  as  the 
only  infallible  guide  in  matters  of  duty. 
Here  lies  the  great  strength  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist  cause.  And  if  we  have  at  any  time 
referred  to  other  authorities,  it  has  been  in 
accommodation  to  the  course  pursued  by  our 
opponents. 

These  brethren  confidently  appeal  to  the  in- 
stances of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  afibrding  infallible  proof  that  im- 
mersion was  the  primitive  mode.  "Surely," 
say  they,  "  immersion  was  practised  in  the 
apostolic  age,  because  we  read  of  their  bap- 
tizing at  rivers."  But  who,  I  ask,  is  said  to 
have  baptized  at  a  river  ?  No  one  but  John 
the  Baptist,  and  even  he  only  for  a  short 
period,  for  we  soon   find  him  removed  to 


JOHN  BAPTIZING  AT  JORDAN.  49 

jEnon — John  iii.  23.  I  shall  show,  in  the 
proper  place,  that  we  are  not  to  pattern  after 
John's  baptism,  but  after  that  of  Christ. 
But  admitting,  for  argument's  sake,  that  we 
are  to  follow  John,  where  is  the  proof  that 
he  immersed  his  disciples  ? 

JOHN  BAPTIZING  AT  JOEDAN. 

Our  opponents  say  that  he  chose  the  Jor- 
dan as  the  scene  of  his  pious  labours,  because 
that  river  afforded  deep  water,  suitable  for 
dipping.  But  if,  as  they  allege,  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  was  so  well  supplied  with  water, 
that  three  thousand  persons  could  easily  be 
immersed  in  a  few  hours  ;  and  if,  moreover, 
every  Jew  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  the  land  had  convenient  streams,  or  pools, 
in  which  to  dip  himself  and  his  table-couch 
before  every  meal — where,  according  to 
their  own  showing,  was  the  necessity  of  John 
going  to  Jordan  to  immerse  ?  We  think  we 
can  furnish  a  much  more  satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  the  matter.  John  made  his  ap- 
pearance among  the  Jews,  in  fulfilment  of 
the  prophecy,  that  he  should  be  "  the  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness."  The  wild- 
erness of  Judea,  and,  indeed,  the  greater  part 
of  that  country,  is  well  known  to  be  poorly 
supplied  with  water.  There  are  few  streams 
of  any  consequence ;  and  these  are  dried  up 
during  the  greater  part  of  the  season,  so 
that  the  necessary  supplies  for  the  people, 
5 


&9  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

and  for  their  flocks  and  herds,  must  be  ob- 
tained from  wells  and  reservoirs,  dug  at 
great  expense.  Hence  the  difficulty  between 
Abraham  and  Abiraelech  about  wells — Gen. 
xxi.  25.  And  hence  the  disputes  between 
Isaac's  servants  and  the  men  of  Gerar,  who 
said,  "  The  water  is  ours."  Gen.  xxvi.  18-22. 
The  Jordan  ran  along  the  border  of  the 
wilderness ;  and  John  very  naturally  chose 
the  banks  of  that  river  as  the  scene  of  his 
labours,  in  order  that  the  immense  multitudes 
that  resorted  to  him  might  obtain  plentiful 
supplies  of  water  for  themselves  and  for 
their  beasts  of  burden.  Even  in  this  well- 
watered  country,  in  selecting  the  ground  for 
camp-meetings,  and  other  great  assemblages 
of  people,  accommodations  of  that  kind  are 
made  a  prominent  object.  And  it  is  within 
the  knowledge  of  the  writer,  that  during  the 
great  drought  of  1854,  our  Baptist  brethren 
themselves  chose  a  particular  locality  for 
a  grand  Sabbath-school  celebration,  with 
special  reference  to  a  plentiful  supply  of 
wholesome  water.  And  yet  no  immersion 
was  to  take  place  on  the  occasion.  But 
what  are  all  the  crowds  that  assemble  at  the 
largest  camp-meetings,  and  public  celebra- 
tions, compared  with  the  multitudes  that 
continually  thronged  around  the  forerunner 
of  our  Lord  ?  Is  it  at  all  surprising,  that 
he  should  take  his  station,  for  a  time,  on 
the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  and  that  the  sacred 
writer  should  mention  the  fact,  without  any 
reference  to  immersion  ? 


51 


JOHN"  BAPTIZING  AT  ^NON. 


This  account  of  the  matter  is  confirmed  by 
the  fact,  that  John  so  soon  removed  from 
Jordan  to  JEnon — John  iii.  28.  Eusebius 
and  Jerome,  as  quoted  b}''  Calmet,  say  that 
this  pkice  was  "  eight  miles  from  Scythopolis, 
South,  near  Shalim  and  Jordan."  The  name 
{Ainon  or  Ainuon)  signifies  the  spring  of 
Yon^  or  the  dove's  sjrmig^  and  was  most  prob- 
ably selected  by  John,  as  affording  plenty 
of  wholesome  water  for  the  multitudes,  at  a 
season  when  the  water  of  Jordan  was  less 
pure.  For  surely  if  deep  water  for  immer- 
sion was  his  object,  he  would  not  leave  a 
large  river,  and  betake  himself  to  dipping 
the  Jews  in  a  spring.* 


Our  opponents  insist  that  JEnon  must 
have  been  chosen  on  account  of  facilities  for 
dipping,  because  we  read  that  "  there  was 
much  water  there."  This  language,  in  their 
opinion,  implies  a  far  greater  quantity  of 
water  than  could  have  been  required  by  the 
largest  assemblages  of  people,  for  their  sub- 

*  Mr.  C.  Taylor  thinks  that  the  fountain  of  Elisha, 
near  Jericho,  is  the  iEiion  of  scripture.  Dr.  Barclay 
thinks  he  has  discovered  it  in  the  Wady  Farah,  six  miles 
north-east  from  Jerusalem.  The  spring  he  describes 
ebbs  and  flows  every  six  minutes.  City  of  the  Great 
King,  pp.  569,  570. 


52  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

sistence,  for  their  daily  purifications,  and  for 
the  animals  on  which  they  were  conveyed. 
*'  Much  water,"  Greek  ti<5aro  noWa  {hudata polla^) 
in  their  imagination,  is  transformed  into  a 
mighty  roaring  flood,  like  the  Tigris  or 
Euphrates.  Unfortunately  for  them,  no 
such  large  collection  of  waters  can  be  found 
in  the  wilderness  of  Judea.  The  same  mode 
of  expression  is  used  in  Ezek.  xix.  10,  to  de- 
note the  little  rills  which  nourish  the  grow- 
ing plants.  Israel  is  there  compared  to  a 
vine,  "fruitful  and  full  of  branches,  by 
reason  of  many  ivatersy  Heb.  mim  rahim, 
LXX.  voaroi  TToWoi,  {liudcitos  poUou).  Can  the 
vine  flourish  in  the  midst  of  "  mighty 
floods  ?" 

If  John's  object  in  resorting  to  JSnon  was 
dipping,  the  language  used  by  the  sacred 
writer  seems  somewhat  strange;  for  "much 
water"  may  yet  be  too  shallow  for  immer- 
sion. To  suit  the  construction  of  the  Bap- 
tists, the  Evangelist  should  have  said,  "  John 
was  baptizing  at  ^Enon,  because  there  was 
deep  water  there." 


It  is  urged  moreover  that  John  baptized 
the  people  in  Jordan.  But  that  does  not 
prove  that  he  immersed  them.  It  is  quite 
common  for  persons  to  go  into  a  river  with- 
out going  under  the  water.  But,  say  the 
Baptist  brethren,  to  baptize  in  Jordan  cer- 


JEKUSALEM   AND  JUDEA   BAPTIZED.      53 

tainly  means  to  plunge  into  the  waters  of 
Jordan.  Is  it  so  indeed  ?  Then  when  the 
Scripture  says,  "John  did  baptize  in  the 
wilderness,"  (Mark  i.  4,)  the  meaning  is, 
"  John  did  plunge  them  into  the  sands  of  the 
wilderness  !"  And  when  it  is  said  that  he  was 
"  baptizing  in  Bethabara,  beyond  Jordan," 
we  are  to  understand  that  he  was  dipping 
the  people  into  or  under  a  town!!  The 
Israelites  were  baptized  in  the  sea  ;  and  were 
they  plunged  into  the  sea  ?  On  a  memorable 
occasion  God  commanded  the  priests,  saying, 
"  When  ye  are  come  to  the  brink  of  the 
water  of  Jordan,  ye  shall  stand  still  in 
Jordan."  Josh.  iii.  8.  So  plain  is  it,  that  in 
scripture  usage  the  phrase  in  Jordan  often 
means  no  more  than  at  the  brink  of  the  river."^ 

JERUSALEM  AND   ALL   JUDEA   BAPTIZED. 

There  is  an  insuperable  difficulty  attend- 
ing the  supposition  that  John  immersed. 
He  exercised  his  ministry  for  a  period  not 
exceeding  eighteen  months ;  and  yet,  during 
that  short  period,  "  there  went  out  unto  him 


*  We  would  laugh  at  a  person  who  should  infer  that 
Cincinnati  is  a  floating  city,  because  described  as  sit- 
uated on  the  Ohio  river.  Equally  futile  is  the  inference 
in  favour  of  immersion  drawn  from  the  phrase  "  in  Jor- 
dan.'^ The  Greek  word  h  [en)  here  translated  in,  is 
rendered  ten  different  ways  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
alone  ;  namely,  on,  with,  by,  for,  among,  at,  through,  unto, 
because  of,  and  in, 
5* 


54  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem, 
and  were  all  baptized  of  him." — Mark  i.  5. 
Another  Evangelist  says,  "  There  went  out 
to  him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  bap- 
tized of  him  in  Jordan."  Matt.  iii.  5,  6. 
That  distinguished  Baptist,  the  Kev.  Eobert 
Hall,  speaking  of  John,  says,  "  The  number 
of  his  converts  was  prodigious.  The  sub- 
mission to  his  institute  appears  to  have  been 
almost  national."  The  strong  language  of 
the  scripture  seems  to  imply  that  a  majority 
of  the  Jewish  people  were  baptized,  and  that 
the  ordinance  was  administered  by  John 
himself.  If  we  suppose  only  a  million  of 
the  Jews  to  have  received  the  ordinance  at 
his  hands,  and  that  for  a  whole  year  he  did 
nothing  but  baptize,  the  proportion  for  each 
day  would  be  more  than  2,700.  No  human 
being  could  immerse  the  fourth  part  of  that 
number  daily  for  seven  days  in  succession. 
Nor  could  any  man  live,  standing  month 
after  month  up  to  his  waist  in  water.  To 
obviate  this  last  difficulty,  Dr.  Carson  sup- 
poses that  John  managed  to  immerse  his 
converts  without  wetting  himself.  His 
words  are  these :  "  Tliere  is  no  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  John  the  Baptist  went  into  the 
water  in  baptizing.  He  chose  some  place 
on  the  edge  of  the  Jordaji,  that  admitted  the 
immersion  of  the  person  baptized,  wliile  the 
baptizer  remained  on  the  shore,"  p.  131.  This, 
indeed,  relieves  one  difficulty,  but  it  creates 


55 


another  fully  as  great.  John,  standing  on  a 
steep  bluff'  of  the  river,  could  easily  thrust 
down  the  Jews  into  deep  water;  but  how 
could  he  draw  them  out  again  ?"^  And  yet 
that  is  one  essential  part  of  baptism  by  im- 
mersion. What  machinery  of  pulleys,  cranes 
or  sweeps  did  he  use  for  that  purpose?  Or 
did  he  plunge  them  down  and  let  them  get 
out  as  best  they  could?  Dr.  Carson's  sug- 
gestion is  about  as  ingenious  as  that  of  the 
worthy  Baptist  preacher,  who  supposed  that 
the  converts  of  John  might  have  taken  their 
station  in  the  Jordan  by  hundreds  at  a  time, 
and  then,  at  the  word  of  command,  dipped 
themselves  in  the  water.  Thus,  many  thou- 
sands could  easily  be  immersed  in  a  single 
day. 

John's  baptism  superseded  by  that  of 

CHRIST. 

After  all,  the  mode  in  which  John  admin- 
istered baptism  is  of  small  importance  to  us. 
We  are  not  under  obligation  to  copy  his 
baptism,   but   that   of  Christ.      These  two 


•^  Some  years  ago,  the  writer  heard  of  an  attempt  by 
a  preacher  to  immerse  a  candidate  in  the  river  Cheat, 
without  wetting  himself.  There  was  no  difficulty  in 
getting  the  candidate  under  the  water,  but  in  the  strug- 
gle attending  the  effort  to  draw  him  out,  the  baptizer 
and  the  baptized  were  both  plunged  headlong  into  the 
river.  This  was  previous  to  the  invention  and  use  of 
the  "  vulcanized  india  rubber  baptismal  pants/'  now  ad- 
vertised in  the  Baptist  newspapers. 


58  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

institutions  diflfer  in  several  important  parti- 
culars. 

1.  Jolin's  baptism  was  intended  for  the 
Jews  only.  Christ's  was  intended  for  all 
nations;  agreeably  to  the  prediction  that  he 
should  "sprinkle  many  nations."   Isa.  lii.  15. 

2.  John's  baptism  was  designed  to  prepare 
the  way  for  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  at 
a  period  when  John  himself  did  not  know 
him.  John  i.  13.  Christ's  baptism  required 
a  settled  belief  in  him  as  a  divine  Saviour 
who  had  suffered  death,  risen  again,  and 
ascended  to  the  Father. 

8.  John's  baptism  was  not  given  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  nor  in  that  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Christ's  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered in  all  three  of  the  sacred  names. 

THE   REBAPTIZING   AT  EPHESUS. 

But  this  question  is  set  at  rest  by  the  ac- 
count given  us  of  the  rebaptism  of  certain 
persons  at  Ephesus,  who  had  already  sub- 
mitted to  the  baptism  of  John,  see  Acts  xix. 
1 — 6.  These  persons  having  assured  Paul 
that  they  had  "  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost,"  he  asks,  "  Unto 
what  then  were  ye  baptized '/"  The  very 
question  implied  that  tliere  had  been  more 
than  one  institution  of  baptism,  and  Paul 
would  know  whether  they  had  received 
John's  or  Christ's.  Accordingly  they  an- 
swered, "  Unto  John's  baptism."    This  solved 


JESUS  BAPTIZED  BY  JOHN.  57 

the  difficulty,  for  John  did  not  baptize  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity.  He  "verily  bap- 
tized with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying 
unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe 
on  him  who  should  come  after  hira^  that  is, 
on  Christ  Jesus."  After  this  brief  explana- 
tion, Paul  caused  them  to  be  baptized  "  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  For  John's 
baptism  being  no  longer  in  force,  they  could 
not  be  received  as  regularly  baptized  mem- 
bers, till  they  submitted  to  the  new  ordinance 
appointed  by  Christ. 

JESUS  BAPTIZED  BY  JOHN. 

Our  Baptist  friends  assert  with  their  usual 
confidence  that  Jesus  was  immersed  by  John. 
If  we  ask  for  the  proof,  they  reply  that 
Jesus  was  baptized  in  Jordan.  We  beg  their 
pardon,  but  do  not  regard  that  circumstance 
as  sufficient  evidence  that  he  was  immersed. 
He  may  have  descended  the  high  banks  of 
Jordan,  or  trod  into  the  edge  of  the  stream, 
without  being  plunged  into  it.  This  will 
appear  not  unlikely,  if  we  consider  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Eastern  countries,  instead  of 
shoes  and  stockings,  wear  a  sandal  of  wood 
or  leather,  covering  no  more  than  the  sole 
of  the  foot ;  and  in  a  hot  climate,  like  that 
of  Judea,  they  might,  on  a  thousand  occa- 
sions, step  into  a  stream  without  any  thought 
of  going  under  the  water. 


58       THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 
"  OUT  OF  THE  WATER." 

But,  say  the  Baptists,  Jesus  "  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water,  (Matt.  iii.  16,) 
which  surely  means  that  he  went  up  from 
under  the  water."^  Here  again  we  must  dif- 
fer from  these  brethren.  The  language  of 
the  original  will  not  justify  their  construc- 
tion. The  word  a^:»o,  translated  out  of  pri- 
marily signifies /roTTi,  It  occurs  in  the  Gos- 
pel by  Matthew  one  hundred  and  nine  times, 
and   is  rendered  just  sixty-five  times  from 

*  Dr.  George  Campbell  seems  to  couDtenanee  the  notioa 
that  the  phrase  "  went  up  out  of  the  water,"  implies  aa 
emersion  out  of,  or  from  under  the  water.  His  language, 
often  quoted  by  the  Baptists,  is  as  follows,  "  Accord- 
ingly, the  baptized  are  said  dvajSaivuv  [anabainein)  to 
arise,  to  emerge,  or  ascend,  v.  16,  arrd  rov  -uJaroj  {apo  tou 
hudatos),  and  Acts  viii.  39,  Ik  tov  vSarog  [ek  tou  hiulatos), 
from  or  out  of  the  water."  Notes  on  Matt.  How  often 
are  men  betrayed  into  error  by  attachment  to  a  theory ! 
Look  at  the  following  passages  in  which  the  very  same 
verb  and  preposition  occur  in  the  Greek. 

Luke  ii.  4.  "  And  Joseph  also  ivent  up  from  Gali- 
lee." Did  he  "  emerge"  from  under  the  soil  of  Galilee 
or  the  city  of  Nazareth  ? 

Song  iii.  6.  "  Who  is  she,  coming  tip  from  the  wilder- 
ness ?"  Did  the  spouse  "  emerge  or  ascend"  from  under 
the  sands  of  the  desert  ? 

Gen.  xvii.  22.     "  And  God  went  up  from  Abraham." 

John  xi.  .5.5.  "And  many  wc»^  oi// o/"  the  country 
vp  to  Jernsal(;m.  Did  they  "  emerge"  out  of  the  earth 
like  the  fabled  offspring  of  the  serpent's  teeth  ? 

Acts  viii,  39 — "  Both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  came  tip 
out  of  the  water."  Did  the  liajitizer  and  the  baptized 
both  "  emerge"  from  under  the  water  ?  See  also  liev. 
vii.  2. 


OUT  OF  THE  WATER.  59 

and  only  ten  times  out  of.^  Its  usual  mean- 
ing would  doabtless  have  been  given  it  in 
Matt.  iii.  16,  but  for  the  strong  leaning  of 
the  translators  to  immersion.  We  saj  not 
this  to  censure  them.  They  were  learned  and 
conscientious  men ;  and  the  version  they 
have  given  us  is  probably,  as  a  whole,  the 
best  in  any  language.  It  is  not  perfect,  just 
because  they  were  men.  That  they  should 
discover  no  small  bias  in  favour  of  immer- 
sion will  not  be  surprising,  if  we  reflect  that 
the  church  of  England,  previous  to  her  im- 
perfect reformation  from  Popery,  had  uni- 
formly adhered  to  the  trine  immersion.  Even 
after  her  separation  from  Eome,  her  first  lit- 
urgy in  1547  enjoined  the  trine  immersion  ; 
and  that  mode  of  baptism  continued  to  be 
practised  till  250  years  ago,  when  it  was 
gradually  laid  aside.  It  was  about  this 
period  that  our  version  of  the  Bible  was 
produced,  and  it  favours  the  Baptists  quite 
as  much  as  they  ought  to  desire. 

But  there  is  another  strong  objection  to 
the  construction  which  the  Baptists  give  to 
the   phrase   "  went   up    out  of  the   water." 

*  Of  the  ten  instances  in  Matthew  in  which  apo  is  ren- 
dered out  of,  six  are  cases  in  which  ek  is  prefixed  to  the 
foregoing  verb.  This  apparently  gives  to  apo  the  force 
of  ek  twice  repeated — a  subject  which  will  be  noticed  in 
the  next  chapter.  The  four  remaining  passages  are, 
chap.  iii.  16, — "  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water," 
viii.  34, — "  would  depart  out  q/' their  coasts,"  xiv.  13, — 
"  followed  him  out  of  the  cities,"  and  verse  29, — "  Peter 
was  come  down  out  of  the  ship." 


60  THE   MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

They  know  very  well  that,  in  administering 
baptism  in  their  peculiar  mode,  there  are  two 
distinct  acts  performed  by  the  baptizer,  each 
of  which  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  dipping. 
The  one  is  putting  the  person  under  water, 
and  the  other  is  taking  him  out  again.  I 
repeat,  that  unless  both  these  operations  are 
performed  by  the  baptizer,  there  is  no  dip- 
ping in  the  case.  Now  it  is  plain,  that  Jesus 
*'  went  up  out  of  the  water  "  by  his  own  act 
— not  by  that  of  John.  Consequently,  he 
was  not  dipped  by  John.  To  suit  the  Bap- 
tist theory,  the  Evangelist  should  have  said, 
"  And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  was 
drawn  up^  or  lifted  out  of  the  water." 

ANCIENT  PICTORIAL  REPRESENTATIONS. 

The  views  already  expressed  are  amply 
confirmed  by  many  ancient  pictures,  repre- 
senting the  baptism  of  the  Saviour.  The 
subject  seems  to  have  been  a  favourite  one 
with  the  christian  artists,  who  lived  in  the 
ages  succeeding  the  apostles.  And  it  is  a 
striking  fact,  that  among  all  the  works  of 
that  kind  which  have  been  transmitted  to  us, 
not  one  represents  this  baptism  as  taking 
place  by  immersion.  On  the  contrary,  they 
all,  with  singular  uniformity,  represent  John 
as  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  upon  the  head 
of  Christ,  who  is  standing  in  the  water  of 
Jordan.  Most  of  these  pictures  were  made 
at  a  period  when  immersion  had  become  the 


ANCIENT  PICTORIAL  REPRESENTATIONS.    61 

prevailing  practice  in  the  church,  and,  con- 
sequently, must  be  regarded  as  unwilling 
testimony,  rendered  by  immersionists  them- 
selves, to  historical  truth. 

Mr.  C.  Taylor,  editor  of  Calmet's  Diction- 
ary, in  his  Ai^ostolic  Baptism^  has  furnished 
copies  of  a  number  of  these  ancient  pictures. 
I  will  briefly  notice  a  few  of  them. 

One  is  copied  from  the  centre-piece  of  the 
dome  of  the  Baptistery  at  Kavenna,  which 
was  built  and  decorated  in  the  year  454. 
John  the  Baptist  is  drawn  standing  on  the 
brink  of  the  Jordan,  holding  a  vessel  from 
which  he  ])ours  water  on  the  head  of  Christ, 
who  is  standing  in  the  water.  Over  his  head 
is  the  descending  dove,  a  symbol  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

Another  is  a  picture  in  mosaic,  taken  from 
the  church  of  Cosmedin,  in  Kavenna.  The 
edifice  is  known  to  have  been  erected  in  the 
year  401.  John  the  Baptist  is  represented 
as  standing  on  a  rock  which  overhangs  the 
Jordan,  clad  in  a  hairy  garment.  In  his  left 
hand  is  a  crooked  staff',  and  in  his  right  a 
shell,  from  which  he  pours  water  upon  the 
Redeemer,  who  is  standing  below  him  in 
the  water.  Above  his  head  is  the  descend- 
ing dove. 

A  third  is  taken  from  the  church  in  the 
Yia  Ostiensis,  at  Rome.  It  is  executed  in 
brass,  the  figures  being  partly  in  relief,  and 
partly  engraved.  The  positions  occupied  by 
John  and  the  Saviour  are  the  same  as  in  the 
6 


$8  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

Other  pictures.  The  baptism  is  by  affusion. 
The  picture  is  evidently  the  work  of  Greek 
artists,  and  is  regarded  by  learned  anti- 
quaries as  very  ancient.  The  inscriptions 
are  in  Greek,  with  the  motto  BAPTICEC. 

A  fourth  is  copied  from  the  walls  of  an 
ancient  Baptistery,  found  in  the  Catacombs 
of  Pontianus,  near  Eome.  These  extensive 
Catacombs  were  originally  quarries  which 
furnished  the  christians  with  a  secure  retreat 
in  the  ages  of  persecution.  In  these  subter- 
ranean regions,  thousands  sought  for  safety, 
celebrated  their  worship,  and  buried  their 
dead.  The  Baptistery  is  about  six  feet 
square,  cut  in  the  solid  rock.  On  the  wall 
above,  is  a  rude  picture  of  the  baptism  of 
Christ.  Again,  John  stands  on  the  bank  of 
the  river,  and  pours  water  on  the  head  of 
Christ.  The  figures  of  the  lamb  and  of  the 
single  angel  are  considered  evidences  of  great 
antiquity.  Below  is  a  cross  on  which  are 
suspended  the  Greek  letters,  Alpha  and 
Omega.  It  is  susceptible  of  proof  that  this 
Baptistery  was  in  use  in  the  first  and  second 
centuries. 

These  pictorial  representations  prove  that 
from  the  earliest  times,  before  the  rise  of 
Popery,  and  even  after  immersion  had  be- 
come generally  practised,  both  Greeks  and 
Latins  believed  that  Christ  was  baptized  by 
affusion.^ 

•*  We  have  introduced  the  subject  of  these  pictorial 


WHY  JESUS  WAS  BAPTIZED.  63 


WHY  JESUS  WAS   BAPTIZED. 

Our  opponents  talk  much  and  declaim 
loudly  about  following  the  Lord  Jesus  in  his 
baptism.  In  the  most  impassioned  language, 
they  exhort  their  hearers  "  to  follow  their 
Saviour  to  Jordan — down  into  the  water, 
into  his  liquid  grave."  Well  would  it  be  if 
these  brethren  were  as  eager  to  persuade 
men  to  follow  Christ  in  his  love  to  God  and 
man,  in  his  purity  of  heart  and  life,  his  hu- 
mility, patience,  meekness,  his  diligence  in 
doing  good,  and  his  decided  opposition  to 
formalism.  But,  alas  !  when  they  speak  of 
following  Christ,  the  water  seems  to  swallow 
up  all  but  one  idea — that  of  being  immersed. 
As  might  be  looked  for,  many  of  their 
hearers  are  ready  to  conclude  that  they  have 
followed  Christ  far  enough  if  they  have  been 

representations,  partly  to  meet  the  common  objection  of 
our  Baptist  brethren,  that  sprinkling  owes  its  origin  to 
Popery.  We  may  add,  that  authors,  who  wrote  before 
the  existence  of  Popery,  believed  that  John  baptized  by 
pouring.  Aurelius  Prudeutius,  A.  D.  390,  referring  to 
John's  baptism,  sayi^,  perfiuiit  fluvio,  "  he  poured  water, 
or  perfused  them  in  the  river."  Pauliuus  of  Nola,  a 
few  years  later,  says,  *'  He  [John]  washes  away  the  sins 
of  believers,  mfiisis  lymphis — by  pouring  on  water." 
Bernard,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  our  Saviour  by 
John,  says,  Infundit  aquam  capiti  Creatoris  creatura — 
''  The  creature  pours  water  on  the  head  of  the  Creator." 
Lactantius  says,  "  Christ  received  baptism,  that  he  might 
save  the  Gentiles  by  baptism  ;  that  is,  pur/Jici  roris  per' 
fusione — by  perfusion  of  the  purifying  dew." — Pond  on 


64  THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

put  under  the  water.  By  way  of  correcting 
this  serious  error,  a  little  investigation  will 
show  that  Christ  was 


NOT   BAPTIZED   AS   AN   EXAMPLE   FOR  US. 

1.  He  was  not  baptized  with  "  John's  bap- 
tism," for  that  was  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance, and  our  Lord  had  no  sin  to  repent  of. 

2.  He  did  not  receive  "  believers'  baptism," 
for  that  would  be  to  believe  on  himself, 
whereas  he  was  the  great  object  of  faith. 

3.  He  was  not  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  for  then  he 
would  have  been  baptized  in  his  own  name. 

4.  He  was  not  baptized  till  he  was  thirty 
years  of  age. 

So,  then,  he  did  not  receive  John's  bap- 
tism, nor  believers'  baptism,  nor  christian 
baptism,  nor  was  he  baptized  till  he  was 
thirty  years  of  age.  How,  then,  can  it  be 
said  that  he  was  baptized  as  an  example  for 
us  ?  Is  there  a  single  passage  of  God's 
word  which  countenances  that  idea?  Not 
one.  Then  let  us  hear  the  true  reason  of 
his  baptism  from  his  own  lips.  John,  not 
understanding  his  design  at  first,  was  un- 
willing to  baptize  him,  saying,  "  I  have  need 
to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to 
me?"  Matt.  iii.  14.  Jesus  then  unfolded  to 
him  the  end  he  had  in  view,  saying,  "Suffer 
it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  (i.  e. 
John  and  himself)  to  fuljil  all  ri(jhteousnessP 


NOT  BAPTIZED  AS  AN  EXAMPLE.        65 

John  now  acquiesced,  for  he  perceived  that 
Christ  was  about  to  enter  upon  his  ministry, 
and  that  it  was  requisite  that  he  should  be 
consecrated  to  the  work,  by  the  agency  of 
his  forerunner,  and  by  the  anointing  of  the 
Spirit.  "  Righteousness'^  means  conformity  to 
a  law.  And  to  what  law  did  Christ  and 
John  conform  in  this  instance?  Not  to  the 
moral,  but  the  ceremonial  law.  To  explain 
the  transaction,  we  must  recur  to  the  law 
for  the  consecration  of  priests,  which  is  in 
these  words,  "  And  thou  shalt  bring  Aaron 
and  his  sons  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation,  and  wash  them  with 
water.  And  thou  shalt  put  upon  Aaron  the 
holy  garments,  and  anoint  him,  and  sanctify 
him."  Exod.  xl.  12, 18.  Now,  these  Aaronic 
priests,  in  their  official  character,  were  types 
of  Christ,  and  it  was  necessary  that  all  the 
types  should  receive  their  fulfilment  in  him. 

First.  As  the  priests  were  introduced  into 
their  office  at  the  age  of  thirty  years,  so 
Christ  delayed  entering  upon  his  ministry 
till  he  had  reached  that  age. 

Secondly.  As  the  priests  were  set  apart 
to  their  office  by  the  washing  of  water,  so 
by  the  application  of  water  was  Christ  in- 
troduced into  his  priestly  office,  which  was 
the  basis  of  his  other  two  offices. 

Thirdly.  As  the  priests,  at  their  consecra- 
tion, were  anointed  with  the  holy  oil,  so 
Christ,  at  his  baptism,  was  anointed  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  descending  upon  him  in  the 
form  of  a  dove. 
6* 


66  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

Sucli  is  the  only  satisfactory  account  that 
can  be  given  of  this  baptism.  It  was  in- 
cumbent on  John  and  Clirist  to  fulfil  those 
precepts  of  the  law  which  foreshadowed  the 
Messiah's  consecration  to  his  office.  Imme- 
diately after  his  baptism,  and  in  the  first  re- 
corded sermon  he  preached,  Jesus  made  dis- 
tinct reference  to  his  recent  consecration  to 
his  work.  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon 
me,  because  he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  the  poor."  Luke  iv.  16 — 21. 

From  the  foregoing  remarks  it  appears 
that  those  who  talk  of  following  Christ  in 
his  baptism,  know  not  what  they  say. 
Neither  in  his  being  circumcised,  nor  in  his 
observance  of  the  passover,  nor  in  his  keep- 
ing of  the  seventh  day,  nor  in  his  baptism, 
was  he  an  example  for  us.  Let  us  imitate 
him  in  all  those  moral  excellences  which 
shone  so  brightly  in  his  character ;  but  let 
us  beware  of  attempting  to  follow  him  into 
his  priestly  office. 


INCONSISTENCY   OF  IMMERSIONISTS.      67 


CHAPTER  ly. 

Inconsistency  of  immersionists — Baptism  of  the  three 
thousand — Curious  experiment — The  facilities  for  dip- 
ping— Change  of  clothing — Baptism  of  the  eunuch — 
"  Into  the  water" — "  Out  of  the  water" — The  eunuch 
not  immersed. 

We  have  seen  that  the  baptism  of  John 
is  not  the  model  to  which  we  are  to  con- 
form at  the  present  day.  The  baptism  de- 
signed for  all  nations,  and  now  binding  on 
the  church,  was  instituted  by  Christ  after  his 
death  and  resurrection.  He  then  commanded 
his  disciples  to  "  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  John's  bap- 
tism, having  accomplished  the  end  for  which 
it  had  been  appointed,  was  now  superseded 
by  that  of  Christ,  which  was  to  continue  in 
force  to  the  end  of  the  world.  If,  therefore, 
we  would  ascertain  the  proper  mode  of 
christian  baptism,  we  must  refer  to  those  in- 
stances in  which  it  was  administered  by  the 
apostles  after  the  death  of  Christ.  Nearly 
all  the  recorded  instances  of  that  kind  are 
found  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.   These  we 


68  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

shall  consider  in  the  proper  order ;  but  first 
we  must  call  attention  to  a 

SINGULAR  INCONSISTENCY  OF  IMMERSIONISTS. 

They  dwell  with  great  emphasis  on  John's 
baptism,  hold  it  up  as  the  model  for  the 
christian  church,  and  strongly  insist  that  he 
resorted  to  Jordan  and  ^non  because  he 
could  not  elsewhere  find  facilities  for  dip- 
ping. Yet  when  we  refer  them  to  the  fact 
that  the  apostles  never  met  with  any  diffi- 
culty in  administering  baptism  in  any  local- 
ity, "  Oh,  very  true,"  say  they,  "  for  wherever 
man  has  fixed  his  abode  there  is  at  all  times 
a  sufficiency  of  water  for  immersion." 

We  cannot  reconcile  these  conflicting 
statements.  If  John  was  compelled  to  go 
all  the  way  to  Jordan  and  iEnon  to  baptize, 
will  our  brethren  tell  us  why  the  apostles 
were  under  no  such  necessity  ?  According 
to  our  theory,  indeed,  the  reason  is  quite 
obvious.  They  did  not,  like  the  Baptist,  as- 
semble round  them  vast  crowds  to  remain 
with  them  for  days  together,  and  requiring 
large  supplies  of  water  for  ordinary  uses. 
And  hence  they  were  never  obliged  to  go 
out  of  their  way  for  water.  There  is  no  in- 
stance on  record  in  which  they  had  occasion 
to  leave  the  place  of  worship  to  find  water 
for  baptism.  Tliey  seem  to  have  baptized 
all  their  numerous  converts  on  the  very  spot 
where  they  preached  to  them — three  thou- 


THKEE   THOUSAND  BAPTIZED.  69 

sand  at  one  time,  and  five  thousand  at  an- 
other, in  the  midst  of  a  crowded  city — Cor- 
nelius in  his  own  house — the  Ethiopian  in 
a  desert — the  Philippian  jailer  in  the  prison 
at  midnight — Saul  in  his  private  room  at 
Damascus ;  besides  great  multitudes  in  Sam- 
aria, Corinth,  and  other  cities.  Now  we 
think  our  immersion ist  friends  are  bound  to 
show  how  it  happened  that  the  apostles 
found  plenty  of  water  for  baptism  in  so 
many  different  places,  where  John  could  not 
be  accommodated.  Did  the  river  Jordan,  or 
the  springs  of  ^non,  miraculously  follow 
them  in  all  their  journeyings  ? 

According  to  the  Baptists,  there  were  very 
few  places  where  John  could  get  water 
enough  for  baptizing,  whilst  the  apostles 
could  find  enough  anywhere.  If  this  be 
true,  the  apostles  did  not  baptize  in  the  same 
manner  as  John ;  and  if  John  practised  dip- 
ping, the  apostles  did  not.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  John,  like  the  apostles,  coald  easily 
administer  his  baptism  anywhere,  then  he 
did  not  go  away  to  Jordan  and  JSnon  to 
find  water  for  baptizing,  but  for  other  pur- 
poses. 

I  proceed  now  to  consider  the  case  of  the 

THREE  THOUSAND,  BAPTIZED  IN  JERUSALEM. 

This  is  the  first  instance  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  christian  baptism  by  the  apostles. 
See  Acts  ii.    41;   "Then  they  that   gladly 


^  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

received  his  word  were  baptized,  and  the 
same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls."  Where  is  the  evi- 
dence that  these  persons  were  immersed? 
There  is  none  whatever  ;  on  the  contrary, 
the  immersion  of  this  vast  multitude,  in  the 
circumstances,  was  quite  impracticable.  It 
was  nine  o'clock  when  Peter  began  his  ser- 
mon, and  when  that  was  ended,  the  congre- 
gations were  further  exhorted  "  with  many 
other  words,"  verse  40.  Much  time  also 
must  have  been  occupied  in  the  examination 
of  three  thousand  candidates;  and  if  the 
apostles  were  genuine  Baptists,  they  must 
have  taken  a  vote  of  the  whole  church  on 
the  reception  of  each  individual.  Thus  a 
very  small  part  of  the  day  remained  for  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance.  And  is  it 
credible  that,  during  that  short  period,  the 
apostles  could  each  have  immersed  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  candidates  ?  As  to  the  seventy 
disciples,  when  Christ  sent  them  forth,  he 
had  not  instituted  his  baptism ;  nor  did  he 
ever  commission  them  to  baptize.  Moreover, 
their  commission  to  preach  had  now  expired. 
It  is  plain  that  the  apostles  were  the  only 
persons  who  ministered  on  the  occasion  ; 
for  Peter  is  represented  as  standing  up  (to 
preach)  '•'•  with  the  eleven;''''  verse  14;  and  the 
convicted  multitude  sought  direction,  not 
from  the  seventy,  but  from  "Peter  and  the 
rest  of  the  apostles,"  saying,  "  What  shall  we 
do  ?"  verse  37. 


EXPEEIMENT  IN  BAPTISTHENICS.        71 


CURIOUS  EXPERIMENT  IN  BAPTISTHENICS. 

The  Baptist  brethren  claim  that  the  apos- 
tles could  easily  have  immersed  their  three 
thousand  converts  in  the  time  allowed  them, 
and  undertake  to  test  the  matter  by  actual 
experiment.  Among  others,  a  worthy  Bap- 
tist preacher  of  our  acquaintance,  having  on 
hand  some  forty-three  candidates  for  baptism, 
resolved  to  make  trial  of  the  speed  with 
which  he  could  put  them  all  in  succession 
under  the  water.  Though  it  is  certain  there 
was  no  wager  in  the  case,  yet  the  good  man 
was  stimulated  to  do  his  utmost,  by  a  desire 
to  obtain  a  triumph  over  the  Pedobaptists. 
For  this  end  all  needful  arrangements  were 
made.  Laymen  were  appointed  to  bring  the 
candidates  down  to  the  water's  edge.  Others 
led  them  into  deep  water,  where  the  minister 
plunged  them  under,  repeating  the  usual 
words,  and  then  handed  them  over  to  another 
set  of  lay  assistants,  who  led  them  back  to 
the  shore.  Persons  were  also  stationed  on 
the  bank,  with  watch  in  hand,  to  note  the 
time  consumed.'  The  result  was,  that  the 
whole  forty-three  were  immersed  in  just 
thirty-one  minutes ;  though  the  preacher, 
who  was  an  uncommonly  stout,  athletic  per- 
son, seemed  quite  exhausted  by  his  effort. 
It  was  claimed,  however,  that  at  this  rate, 
the  apostles  could  have  immersed  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  persons  each,  in  the  space  of 
three  hours.  On  this  singular  experiment  I 
have  to  make  two  observations : 


72  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

First.  The  respected  brother  contrived  to 
shuffle  off  upon  others  more  than  the  half  of 
his  appropriate  ministerial  duty.  To  baptize^ 
in  his  acceptation  of  the  term,  is  to  immerse 
the  entire  person  of  the  candidate  in  water, 
and  take  him  out  again.  All  this  must  be 
done  by  a  regularly  ordained  minister.  But, 
in  the  present  instance,  laymen  took  in  the 
candidates  and  immersed  them  up  to  the 
waist.  The  minister  did  no  more  than  dip 
their  head  and  shoulders,  and  then  lay  per- 
sons took  them  out  of  the  water.  Thus,  not 
one  of  the  forty-three  received  more  than  a 
half-dipping  from  the  hands  of  the  preacher. 
If  I  were  a  strict  immersionist,  I  would  pro- 
test against  the  admission  of  those  baptisms 
as  valid.  Such  a  "clipping  off  of  the 
ordinance"  might  end  in  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling. 

Secondly.  Supposing  that  the  apostles 
could  operate  with  the  same  speed  as  our 
Baptist  brother — that  is  to  say,  could  im- 
merse forty  persons  each,  in  the  first  half 
hour — it  does  not  follow  that  they  could  each 
immerse  forty  in  the  next  ftalf  hour,  much 
less  forty  in  each  of  four  more  successive 
half  hours.  A  person  may  be  found  who 
■will  run  on  foot  four  miles  in  half  an  hour. 
Does  it  follow  that  he  can  continue  at  that 
gait,  so  as  to  accomplish  twenty-four  miles 
in  three  consecutive  hours? 

Tlie  truth  is,  tliat  no  twelve  men  can  be 
found  who  will  immerse,  with  due  decorum 


THE   FACILITIES   FOR  DIPPING.  73 

and  solemnity,  three  thousand  persons  in  six, 
or  even  in  nine  hours. 

THE   FACILITIES   FOR   DIPPINa. 

But  supposing  the  apostles  to  have  pos- 
sessed the  physical  endurance  of  a  Samson, 
where  could  they  find  twelve  convenient 
places  for  dipping?  There  was  no  river 
within  forty  miles  of  the  city,  and  Kedron  is 
a  mere  winter  stream,  almost  always  dry. 
True,  there  were  within  the  area  of  the  tem- 
ple immense  subterranean  reservoirs  sup- 
plied by  aqueducts ;  and  so  there  were  cis- 
terns underneath  many  private  dwellings ; 
but  these  could  be  no  more  available  for 
immersion  than  a  common  well.  As  to  the 
brazen  sea  and  lavers  of  the  temple,  the 
apostles  could  not  have  gain.ed  possession 
of  those  sacred  utensils,  without  driving  oft* 
by  force  the  whole  body  of  the  priests  who 
had  them  in  charge.  Then  though  there 
were  large  pools  or  tanks  in  or  near  the 
city,  they  were  no't  so  constructed  as  to  allow 
a  number  of  persons  at  the  same  time  to 
make  use  of  them  for  the  immersion  of 
others.*    Nor  is  there  the  slightest  hint  that 

*  Dr.  Barclay,  who  is  a  Baptist,  seems  to  have  proved 
that  what  has  heretofore  been  taken  for  the  pool  of 
Bethesda,  is  nothing  more  than  an  immense  moat,  con- 
structed as  a  defence  to  the  fortress  of  Antonia.  It  is 
still  more  than  fifty  feet  deep-  City  of  the  Great  King,  pp. 
321,  323. 
7 


74  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

the  multitude  moved  one  step  from  the  place 
for  water.  This  omission  the  Baptists  can- 
not easily  explain.  With  them  the  proces- 
sion from  the  church  to  the  river  is  a  material 
part  of  the  ceremony. 

CHANGE   OF   CLOTHING.  ' 

There  is  still  another  difficulty  attending 
the  supposition  that  these  three  thousand 
were  immersed.  They  had  been  drawn  to- 
gether by  the  report  of  a  wonderful  miracle, 
had  not  foreseen  what  would  take  place,  and 
were  altogether  unprepared  for  such  an  emer- 
gency. They  would  hardly  be  immersed  ia 
a  state  of  nudity ;  nor  would  men  and  women 
be  immersed  in  their  clothes,  and  then  in 
crowds  wend  their  way  through  the  streets, 
their  garments  dripping  with  water,  and  ad- 
hering to  their  bodies ;  thus  setting  common 
decency  at  defiance.  Where  then  did  they 
obtain  the  necessary  garments?  Could  the 
apostles  furnish  them  adapted  to  both  sexes, 
and  to  every  stature  ?  Or  did  each  candi- 
date run  back  to  his  dwelling  to  bring  his 
baptismal  suit?  Why  is  tlie  scripture  so 
silent  on  the  subject?  Was  it  an  unimpor- 
tant circumstance?  Oar  Baptist  brethren 
make  the  changing  of  the  clothes  a  very  im- 
portant part  of  the  business.  Matters  appa- 
rently less  important  are  recorded  in  the 
scriptures.  Thus  tlie  murderers  of  Stephen 
are  said  to  have  "  laid  down  their  clothes." 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  ETHIOPIAN  EUNUCH.   75 

It  is  also  mentioned  that  Christ,  on  one  oc- 
casion, "  laid  aside  his  garments,"  and  "  that 
he  took  them  again."  And  when  the  mag- 
istrates of  Philippi  were  about  to  scourge 
Paul  and  Silas,  it  is  recorded  that  "they 
rent  off  their  clothes."  Why  then  have  we 
not  the  slightest  intimation  of  a  change  of 
garments  by  the  multitudes  baptized  in  Je- 
rusalem and  other  cities  ?* 

BAPTISM   OF   THE   ETHIOPIAN  EUNUCH. 

This  interesting  case  is  recorded  in  Acts 
viii.  26—40.  In  verses  88  and  39,  our  En- 
glish version  has  the  following : 

"  And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand 
still :  and  they  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch;  and  he 
baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come 
up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
caught  away  Philip,"  &c. 

This  is  the  sheet  anchor  of  the  immersion- 
ists.  Everywhere,  and  on  all  occasions,  they 
refer  us  to  it,  as  proof  positive  in  favour  of 


*  It  is  remarkable  that  so  soon  as  immersion  makes 
its  appearance  in  the  history  of  the  church,  we  meet  with 
express  mention  of  the  disrobing  of  the  candidates. 
Thus  :  "  Basil  rose  up  with  fear  and  trembling,  un- 
dressed himself,  putting  off  the  old  man,  and  went  down 
praying  into  the  water."  Robinson's  Hist,  of  Bapt.  Ch. 
XV.  Yet  among  all  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament,  there  is  not  one  in  which  the  sliglitest  hint  is 
afibrded  that  any  change  of  garments  took  place. 


76'  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

dipping.  They  do  not  like  to  say,  indeed, 
that  going  down  into  the  water,  here,  means 
going  under  the  water ;  for  then  it  would 
follow  that  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized 
were  both  plunged.  But  why,  say  they,  is 
it  recorded  that  the  parties  went  down  irito 
the  water,  unless  one  of  them  was  immersed  ? 
Says  Dr.  Carson,  "  Had  I  no  more  conscience 
than  Satan  himself,  I  could  not,  as  a  scholar, 
attempt  to  expel  immersion  from  this  ac- 
count." p.  128. 

In  spite  of  the  harsh  denunciations  of  Dr. 
Carson,  I  shall  proceed  to  inquire,  with  the 
utmost  freedom,  whether  there  is  any  im- 
mersion in  the  account. 

In  all  disputes  about  a  scripture  word  or 
phrase,  the  final  appeal  is  to  the  inspired 
original.  Let  us  then  inquire,  with  all  can- 
dour and  sincerity,  whether  the  language  of 
the  original  implies  that  the  parties  went 
into  and  came  out  of  the  water. 

In  prosecuting  this  inquiry,  we  must  claim 
the  indulgence  of  the  reader,  if  we  introduce 
a  number  of  Greek  terms  and  phrases,  as 
this  cannot  well  be  avoided.  At  the  same 
time,  we  hope  so  to  manage  the  discussion  as 
to  enable  even  the  unlearned  to  judge  of  the 
force  and -value  of  the  argument. 


Every  writer  has    some   peculiarities  of 
style.     We  shall,  therefore,  confine  our  re- 


77 

ferences  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  and  here 
our  inquiry  shall  be,  In  what  sense  does  the 
writer  of  that  book  commonly  use  the  iden- 
tical terms  he  employs  in  describing  the  bap- 
tism of  the  eunuch  ?  Our  translators  make 
him  say  that  the  parties  went  into  the  water. 
But,  does  he  really  say  so?  We  think  not. 
The  Greek  word  ek  {eis\  translated  into,  oc- 
curs just  eleven  times  in  the  very  same 
chapter.  And  it  is  translated  into  but  once 
out  of  the  eleven  ;  and  that  once  is  where  it 
is  said  "  they  both  went  down  into  the  water." 
Here  is  an  astounding  fact !  In  verse  3d, 
we  read,  "  committed  them  {eis)  to  prison  ;" 
in  verse  25,  "  returned  {eis)  to  Jerusalem ;" 
and  in  verse  40,  "  came  {eis)  to  Cesarea ;"  and 
so  in  other  places.  Our  translators  appear 
to  have  leaned  so  strongly  to  immersion, 
that,  in  the  case  of  the  eunuch,  they  departed 
widely  from  their  customary  rendering  of 
words. 

There  is  another  fact  of  much  importance 
in  this  connection.  When  the  Greek  writers 
wished  to  express  definitely  the  idea  of  going 
into,  they  usually  doubled  the  preposition 
eis.  That  is,  they  placed  it  before  the  noun, 
and  also  prefixed  it  to  the  verb.  In  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  there  are  thirty-one  in- 
stances of  this  kind.*     Not  so  in  the  account 

*  We  subjoin  a  few  examples  of  the  double  eis. 

Acts  iii.  2,  sla-n-opsvoficvcov  eig  to  Itpov  [eisporeuomenmi  eis 
to  lueron) — "  them  that  entered  into  the  temple" — ix.  6, 
♦^  go  into  the  city" — ix.  8,  "  brought  him  into  Damascus" 
7* 


n  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

of  the  eunuch's  baptism  :  but  a  single  eis  is 
employed.  The  words  are  Karipnoav  cig  to  v6wp 
(katebesan  eis  to  liudor).  Now  if  the  sacred 
writer  meant  to  say  into  the  water,  it  is 
strange  that  he  should  not  employ  his  usual 
language  to  convey  that  idea. 

Bat  there  is  another  fact  still  more  decisive 
in  the  case.  The  preposition  eis  occurs 
single  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  two  hun- 
dred and  sixty-four  times,  and  is  rendered 
into  only  sixty-one  times.  And  then  of 
these  sixty-one  times,  there  are  full  twenty- 
six  in  which  the  word  might  very  properly 
be  rendered  to  or  toiuard;  as  in  chapter  xviii. 
18,  "  sailed  thence  (eis)  into  Syria,"  and  xxvii. 
1,  "  should  sail  (eis)  into  Italy."  Indeed  Mr. 
Alex.  Campbell,  in  his  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  renders  eis  TO  in  a  number  of 
places  where  our  common  version  has  ijito. 
On  the  whole,  then,  the  evidence  from  this 
single  source  is  as  seven  or  eight  to  one 
against  the  supposition  that  the  inspired 
writer  intended  to  say  that  Philip  and  the 
eunuch  went  into  the  water.* 


— xviii.  19,  "  entered  into  the  synan^ogue" — xxi.  28, 
"  brought  Greeks  into  tiie  temple" — xxi.  37,  "  to  be  led 
into  the  castle." 

*  It  may  be  alleged  that  in  the  phrase,  KarkPn^av  tij  rd 
rJcjp  [katchemn  eis  to  Itudor),  the  preposition  Kara  [kata) 
prefixed  to  the  verb,  gives  eis  the  force  of  i7itO'  Let  us 
try  it. 

Acts  xxvi.  14,  KaraTTcadvTuyv  £«V  rffv  y'>  (katapcsonton  eis 
ten  gen),  "  fallen  to  the  earth" — xxvii.  40,  kutcIxov  eis  rdv 


79 


It  is  farther  suggested  by  the  Baptists, 
that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  "  came  up  out  of 
the  water,"  and  therefore  must  have  been  in 
the  water.  The  question  now  is,  Does  the 
inspired  original  say  so? 

The  word  translated  out  of  is  u  (ek).  And 
it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the  Greek 
writers,  when  they  wished,  by  the  force  of 
the  words,  to  express  the  idea  of  going  out 
of  usually  doubled  the  preposition  ek,  plac- 
ing it  before  the  noun,  and  prefixing  it  also 
to  the  verb.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
there  are  no  fewer  than  twenty  examples  of 
this  kind.*      Now  in   the   account   of  the 

aiYiaXou  [kateichon  eis  ton  aigialon),  **  made  toward  the 
shore." 

To  fall  into  the  earth  and  to  sail  into  the  shore  does  not 
make  very  good  sense. 

Still  it  may  be  urged  that  there  is  something  in  the 
word  katebesan  which,  combined  with  eis,  takes  Philip 
and  the  eunuch  irito  the  water.  Let  us  then  examine  a 
few  passages  in  which  the  very  same  combination  occurs. 

Acts    viii.    26,   Kara/3 aivovaau    and   'lepovaaXiJiJi    eig    'Ta<av 

[katabainousan  apo  Hierousalem  eis  Gazan),  "  that  goeth 
down  from  Jerusalem  unto  Gaza" — xvi.  8,  "  came  down 
to  Troas" — xviii.  22,  "  went  down  to  Antioch" — xxv.  6, 
"  went  down  to  Cesarea." 

No  one  who  understands  language  would  speak  of 
travelling  out  of  Jerusalem  into  Jericho  ;  because  the 
idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  is,  that  of  motion  from  one 
point  to  another  ;  and  the  same  terms  are  employed 
■whether  the  traveller  enters  into  the  heart  of  the  city, 
or  stops  in  the  suburbs. 

*  We  give  a  few  examples  of  the  double  ek. 

Acts  vii.  3,  B^eXde  Ik  t/jj  yijj  aov  {Exelthe  ek  tes  ges  sou,) 


80  THE   MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

eunuch's  baptism  but  a  single  eh  occurs, 
d'A3mav  EK  Toi}  vSaros  (anebesccn  ek  tou  hudatos) ;  and 
if  the  sacred  historian  really  meant  to  say, 
^''  out  o/the  water,"  it  is  perfectly  unaccount- 
able that  he  should  omit  to  express  himself 
in  the  definite  manner  customary  with  him 
in  such  cases. 

On  this  point  we  have  still  stronger  evi- 
dence. The  word  eh  occurs  single  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  sixty-four  times ;  and  we 
are  astonished  to  find  that  it  is  translated 
out  ©/"only  five  times,  and  one  of  the  five  is 
where  our  version  has  it,  "  they  were  come 
up  out  of  the  water."  And  can  that  be  the 
precise  idea  which,  judging  from  his  lan- 
guage in  other  cases,  the  sacred  writer  in- 
tended to  convey  ?  The  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary is  overpowering."^ 

But  why,  it  is  asked,  did  the  parties  leave 
the  chariot,  and  go  down  to  the  water,  if  no 
immersion   took   place?     I  answer,  It  was 


"  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country" — xiii.  42,  "  gone  out 
of  the  synagogue" — xix.  16,  "fled  out  of  that  house" 
— xxvii.  30,  "  to  cast  anchors  out  of  the  foreship." 
*  We  give  a  few  examples  o{  ek  single. 

Acts  ii.  2,  lyivtro  m^voi  Ik  tov  ovpavov  lixog  [c^cneio  aphtlO 

ek  tou  ournnou  ecJios)  "  Ruddcnly  there  came  a  sound /?om 
heaven" — xiii.  34,  "  raised  him  up  from  the  dead" — 
xiv.  8,  "  a  cripple /ro?/2  his  mother's  womb" — xxvii.  34. 
"  a  hair  fall  from  the  head" — xviii.  2.  *'  to  depart  fro7n 
Rome." 

'J'hus  a  slight  examination  will  show  that  our  trans- 
lators, in  rendering  ek  ton  hudatos  out  of  tue  water, 
give  an  unusual  sense  to  ek. 


THE   ETHIOPIAN  NOT  IMMERSED.        81 

no  tedious  journey.  Yery  likely  they  had 
not  five  steps  to  take ;  and  it  was  quite  natu- 
ral that  they  should  go  down  to  the  edge  of 
the  water,  so  that  the  baptizer  might  take 
up  some  in  his  hands,  and  apply  it  to  the 
subject,  who  probably  assumed  a  kneeling 
posture  on  the  shore. 

The  sacred  historian  adds,  that  the  Ethio- 
pian ^'went  on  his  way  rejoicing."  And  in 
what  ?  Not,  as  alleged  by  immersionists,  in 
his  baptism,  for  in  that  Simon  Magus  might 
have  rejoiced  too.  But  he  had  now  found 
*'  Him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the 
prophets  did  write." 

THE   ETHIOPIAN  NOT  IMMERSED. 

It  is,  on  several  accounts,  highly  improbable 
that  the  Ethiopian  was  plunged.  Philip  fell 
in  his  company  on  that  part  of  the  route 
from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  "  which  is  desert,'^ 
verse  26.  There,  surrounded  by  arid  wastes 
and  scorching  sands,  he  explained  to  him 
a  remarkable  prophecy,  respecting  Christ. 
That  prophecy,  commencing  near  the  close 
of  the  52d  chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  continued 
through  the  53d,  foretold,  among  other  things, 
that  Christ  should  "  sprinkle  many  nations."* 

^  Baptist  writers  object  that  sprinkling  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  Greek  translation  of  this  verse  by  the  seventy. 
But  it  certainly  is  in  the  Hebrew.  See  Alexander  on 
Isaiah.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  eunuch 
was  not  reading  the  inspired  original.  As  to  the  por- 
tion of  the  prophecy  quoted  in  verses  32  and  33,  it  does 
not  exactly  agree  with  the  Greek  of  the  seventy. 


82  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

This  prediction,  doubtless,  gave  occasion  to 
Philip  to  speak  of  Christ's  parting  command, 
"Go  teach  all  nations^  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  (jhost."  As  they  continued  their  jour- 
ney, they  unexpectedly  came  u])on  "aceitain 
water,"  and  the  new  convert  requested,  and 
received  baptism.  This  could  hardly  have 
taken  place  at  a  river,  or  even  at  a  small 
stream ;  for  neither  the  term  jiotamos^  deno- 
ting the  former,  nor  cUtirnarrhos^  denoting 
the  latter,  is  used  by  the  sacred  writer.  He 
says  "  they  came  unto  n  (ifJw/i  (ti  Jcudor,)  lit- 
erally some  water.  Neither  Jerome  nor 
Sandys  could  find  any  considerable  stream, 
or  body  of  water,  in  all  that  region ;  though 
they  discovered  a  fountain  issuing  from  the 
foot  of  a  hill,  the  waters  of  which  were  lost 
in  the  sands.  Ilicron  de  Loc.  Ilch.  and  Sa7i- 
dys'  Travels.  Here,  or  at  a  pool  formed  in 
the  desert  by  a  sudden  rain,  the  baptism  may 
have  taken  place.^' 

I  beg  pardon  of  the  reader,  for  detaining 
liim  so  long  in  the  desert.  But  it  seemed 
necessary,  in  order  to  overthrow  a  main 
pillar  of  that  mischievous  system,  which 
makes  a  mere  form  of  more  importance  than 

*  Dr.  Rol)inson  locates  the  bccik;  of  tlie  eumicirs  bap- 
tism at  a  point  in  tlie  Wady-ol-llassy,  some  miles  from 
(j.'wa.  J)r.  Jiarcliiy  saw  no  "  (l(!S('rt"  on  llio  way,  l)ut  a 
fertile!  and  poj)uI()US  couufry.  alioinidinpf  with  wells  and 
ppriiifTS.  Jle  seems  not  to  have  pinsued  the  direct  route 
from  Jerusalem  to  (J a/a. 


THE   ETHIOPIAN  NOT  IMMERSED.        83 

faith  or  holiness,  and  casts  out,  among  heath- 
ens and  publicans,  nine-tenths  of  the  mem- 
bers of  Christ's  mystical  body.  May  the 
time  soon  come  when  that  system,  with  all 
its  inherent  evils,  shall  be  immersed^  like 
lead  in  the  mighty  waters,  to  rise  no  more 
for  ever ! 


84  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus — Anastas — Wasliinf?  away 
sins — Baptism  of  Cornelius — Peter's  idea  of  baptism — 
Baptism  of  the  jailer — Symbolical  import  of  baptism 
— "  Buried  by  baptism" — "  One  baptism" — Allusions 
in  Scripture  to  afi'usion — Sprinkling  is  cleansing — 
Peter's  inkling  for  water — Opinions  of  men. 

Escaping  from  the  desert,  and  shaping 
our  course  to  the  north-east,  at  length  we 
reach  the  luxuriant  plain  of  Damascus,  one 
of  the  "  four  Paradises"  of  Eastern  poetry. 
Entering  the  oldest  city  in  the  world,  and 
passing  along  the  street  called  Straight,  we 
come  to  the  house  of  Judas,  where  we  find 

SAUL   OF   TARSUS. 

Ananias  comes  in,  and  puts  his  hands  on 
him;  and  what  follows?  "He  received 
sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was  baptized." 
— Acts  ix.  18.  Ananias  had  said  to  him, 
*'  And  now,  why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise  and  be 
baptized."  Cliap.  xxii.  16.  The  language 
of  tlie  original  is  very  expressive:  dvaarHi 
i/3urrTiaen  (cmccstas  ehcq)ththe\  "  rising,  or  stand- 


ANASTAS,   RISING   OR  STANDING  UP.     85 


ing  up,  he  was  baptized."  And  so  in  the 
parallel  passage,  dvaara?  (ianncai  (auastas  bap- 
tisai),  "rising  up  be  baptized." 

And  it  is  fairly  implied  that  Saul  received 
baptism  immediately,  on  rising  from  his 
couch,  and  without  leaving  the  spot.  Our 
Baptist  friends  suppose  there  is  something 
like  an  ellipsis,  or  omission  of  some  w^ords 
in  the  sentence,  to  be  supplied  by  the  reader; 
and  that  the  meaning  of  Ananias  was,  "  Kise 
up,  and  go  out  to  a  river  or  pool^  and  there  be 
baptized."  Let  us  see  if  the  usage  of  the 
sacred  writers  will  justify  this  construction. 

ANASTAS  (ANASTAS),  RISING  OR  STANDING  UP. 

The  participle  avmras  (anastas)  is  used  by 
Luke  in  his  Gospel,  seventeen  times,  and  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  eighteen  times.  It 
also  occurs  twice  in  Matthew  and  eight  times 
in  Mark  ;  making  forty-five  instances  in  the 
whole  ISTew  Testament.  Having  carefully 
examined  all  the  passages  in  which  it  is 
found,  I  am  prepared  to  assert  with  confi- 
dence that  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground 
for  the  Baptist  hypothesis.  In  not  one  of 
the  forty-five  instances  can  important  words, 
supposed  to  be  implied  and  therefore  omitted, 
be  thrust  in  between  the  participle  and  the 
following  verb.     Here  are  some  examples. 

Acts  V.  6,  "And  the  young  men  arose 
ava(TravTCi  (anastantes)  wound  him  up  and  car- 
ried him  out" — xi.  28,  "  And  there  stood  up 
8 


86  THE   MODE    OF   BAPTISM". 

(anastas)  one  of  them  named  Agabus,  and 
signified" — xiii.  16,  "  Then  Paul  stood  up 
[anastas)  and,  beckoning  with  the  hand,  said." 

Luke  vi.  8,  "Kise  up  {a7iastas)  and  stand 
forth  in  the  midst" — xxii.  46,  "  Eise  [anas- 
tantes)  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  tempta- 
tion." 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that  the  action,  ex- 
pressed by  the  verb,  follows  the  rising  up 
immediately  and  on  the  spot,  leaving  no  in- 
terval to  be  filled  up  by  the  reader.  On  the 
other  hand,  whenever  the  object  of  the  actor 
is  not  attained  without  leaving  the  place,  that 
fact  is  always  expressly  mentioned  ;  as  in 
the  following  passages : 

Acts  ix.  11,  "Arise  {anastas)  and  go  into 
the  street  which  is  called  Straight,  and  in- 
quire"— ix.  39,  "  Then  Peter  arose  (anastas) 
and  went  with  them" — x.  20,  "Arise  (anastas) 
and  get  thee  down  and  go  with  them." 

Luke  XV.  18,  "  I  will  arise  (anastas)  and  go 
to  my  father,  and  will  say  unto  him" — xxiv. 
12,  "  Then  arose  (anastas)  Peter,  and  ran  unto 
the  sepulchre  ;  and  stooping  down,  he  be- 
held the  linen  clothes,"  &c. 

Thus,  in  every  instance  in  which  anastas 
is  used,  if  the  purpose  of  the  actor  in  rising 
vp  is  not  attained  without  going  elsewhere, 
his  going  elsewhere  is  expressly  mentioned. 
There  is  no  room  for  the  insertion  of  omitted 
words.  And  it  is  as  clear  as  noon -day,  that 
when  Ananias  said,  "Arise  and  be  bap- 
tized," he  meant  that  Saul  should  stand  up 


WASHING  AWAY  SINS.  87 

and  be  baptized  at  once,  without  leaving  bis 
chamber. 

What  Baptist  preacher  would  say  to  a 
person  in  a  private  house,  or  at  the  church, 
"  Kise  up  and  be  baptized?"  In  such  case, 
would  not  every  one  expect  the  baptism  to 
take  place  by  affusion?  An  immersionist 
would  say,  "Kise  up  and  go  out  with  me  to 
the  riveTj  and  be  baptized." 

WASHING  AWAY  SINS. 

"  But,"  say  our  good  brethren,  "  does  not 
Ananias  add,  'be  baptized,  and  wash  away 
thy  sins  T  This  surely  calls  for  more  water 
than  is  implied  in  pouring  or  sprinkling." 
I  answer.  Dipping  a  person  with  all  his 
clothes  on,  is  no  more  a  washing  of  the  per- 
son than  sprinkling  is  ;  nor  will  it  more  ef- 
fectually cleanse  from  sin.  What  Ananias 
meant  was,  that  Saul  should  attend  to  the 
visible  sign  of  the  washing  away  of  his  sins, 
baptism  being  the  emblem,  or  sign,  of  s])irit- 
ual  cleansing.  But/zoit'  was  it  to  be  signified? 
Why,  sprinlding  is  the  standard  among  em- 
blematical washings ;  for  God  himself  says, 
"  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
ye  shall  be  clean." — Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.  It  is 
also  said  of  the  Eedeemer,  that  he  hath 
"  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  (or  with)  his 
own  blood." — Rev.  i.  5.  And  how  ?  Peter 
answers,  by  "  s'prinlding  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ."--!  Pet.  i.  2. 


88  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

BAPTISM   OF   CORNELIUS. 

We  now  pass  to  Cesarea,  a  sea-port  on  the 
Mediterranean,  and  the  political  capital  of 
Judea,  under  the  Komans.  Here,  a  Centu- 
rion, previously  instructed  by  Peter,  was 
baptized  in  the  faith  of  Christ.  This  was 
the  first  Gentile  admitted  to  the  christian 
church  ;  and  Julian  the  Apostate,  who  ac- 
knowledged but  two  eminent  converts  from 
Paganism  to  Christianity,  named  him  as  one 
of  them.  For  the  record  of  his  baptism,  see 
Acts  X.  44-48. 

"  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which 
heard  the  word."  "Then  answered  Peter, 
Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?" 

Peter's  meaning  is,  "  Can  any  one  object 
to  the  baptism  of  these  Gentiles,  who  have 
received  the  same  effusion  of  the  Spirit  as 
ourselves  ?"  Still,  the  form  of  his  expres- 
sion discloses  to  us  the  existing  mode  of 
baptism.  "Can  any  msiXi  forhid  luaterP 
This  plainly  implies,  that  the  water  was 
brought  in  and  applied  to  the  subject ;  not 
the  subject  taken  to  the  water.  When  Christ, 
speaking  of  little  children,  says,  '■^forbid  them 
not,"  (Luke  xviii.  16,)  his  meaning  is,  "for- 
bid them  not  to  he  hrouglit  to  me  ;"  for  the 
context  declares  that  they  were  being 
"  brought  to  him,"  at  the  time.  So  when 
Peter  says,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  water  ?" 


Peter's  idea  of  baptism.  89 

Lis  meaning  is,  "  Can  any  one  forbid  water 
to  be  brought  and  applied  in  baptism  to  these 
Gentiles?"  Had  he  been  an  immersionist, 
he  would  doubtless  have  said,  "  Can  any  man 
forbid  these  Gentiles  going  down  with  us  at 
once  to  the  sea  shore,"  &c. 

How  singular  would  it  sound  if  a  Baptist 
preacher,  taking  the  vote  of  his  church  on 
the  reception  of  a  candidate,  should  say, 
"  Brethren,  can  any  of  you  forbid  water  for 
the  baptism  of  this  person  ?"  A  stranger 
present  would  certainly  take  him  for  a  Pedo- 
baptist.  The  immersionists  do  not  speak 
of  forbidding  water  to  a  person,  but  of  for- 
bidding a  person  being  put  under  water,  if 
they  think  him  not  a  proper  subject. 

Peter's  idea  of  baptism. 

In  giving  an  account  of  this  baptism  to 
the  apostles  and  brethren  at  Jerusalem, 
Peter  makes  the  following  remarkable  state- 
ment :  "  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning. 
Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."— Acts  xi.  15,  16. 

Something  occurred  which  forcibly  re- 
minded Peter  of  baptism.  And  what  was 
it?  It  was  the  falling  or  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  on  the  assembly.  But  if  he  was 
an  immersionist,  how  could  that  put  him  in 


90  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

mind  of  baptism  ?  Our  Baptist  friends  say 
tbat  there  is  no  sort  of  resemblance  between 
the  two.  Nothing  short  of  2i  plunge  under 
would  put  them  in  mind  of  baptism.  But 
Peter  was  no  immersionist. 


BAPTISM   OF   LYDIA. 

Leaving  Cesarea,  and  taking  ship,  we 
steer  to  the  north-west;  and  after  sailing 
near  a  thousand  miles,  we  land  at  ISTeapolis, 
and  pass  thence  to  Philippi,  in  Macedonia. 
Here,  when  Paul  visited  the  place,  were  a 
few  Jews,  but  no  organized  synagogue. 
There  was,  however,  a  place  resorted  to  for 
prayer,  in  the  outskirts  of  the  town,  by  the 
river  side.  Here  Paul's  preaching  was 
blessed  to  the  conversion  of  Lydia  of  Thya- 
tira.  The  sacred  historian  tells  us,  in  few 
words,  that  "  she  was  baptized,  and  her 
household." — Acts  xvi.  15.  It  is  not  stated 
whether  this  took  place  at  the  river,  or  else- 
where ;  that  matter  being  left  entirely  to 
conjecture. 

BAPTISM   OF   THE   JAILER. 

From  the  hospitable  dwelling  of  Lydia,  we 
pass  round  to  the  prison  of  Philippi.  Here, 
confined  in  the  inner  ward,  their  feet  made 
fast  in  the  stocks,  and  their  backs  bleeding 
from  recent  scourging,  are  two  of  the  most 
disinterested   servants  of  Christ  the  world 


BAPTISM   OF  THE  JAILEE.  91 

ever  saw.  And  what  bad  they  done  ?  Their 
successful  labours  had  given  offence  to  some 
Pagan  citizens  of  Philippi,  at  whose  instiga- 
tion they  were  cruelly  beaten,  and  ignomini- 
ously  thrust  into  prison.  The  particulars 
are  recorded  in  Acts  xvi.  19 — 40.  The 
reader  is  already  familiar  with  them,  and 
they  need  not  here  be  repeated.  That  the 
jailer's  baptism  took  place  within  the  walls 
of  the  prison,  is  evident  from  the  circum- 
stances narrated.  Yet  our  opponents  allege 
that  the  apostles  must  have  taken  him  out 
to  a  river  for  that  purpose,  because,  in  verse 
30,  we  are  told  that  the  jailer  "  brought  them 
out ;"  and  then,  in  verse  34,  that  "  he  brought 
them  into  his  house."  But  they  forget  that 
the  apostles  were  thrust  into  the  inner 
prison.  From  thence  the  jailer  "  brought 
them  out"  into  the  outer  prison,  where  he 
washed  their  stripes  and  received  baptism. 
Thence  he  "  brought  them  into  his  house ;" 
which,  according  to  usage,  was  under  the 
same  roof,  and  constituted  a  part  of  the 
edifice.^  The  supposition  that  they  took 
the  jailer  and  all  his  family  to  the  river,  is 
attended  with  insuperable  difficulties.  It 
was  midnight.  The  river  was  quite  out  of 
the  city,    verse   13.      By  the  laws   of  the 

*  The  apostles  spake  the  word  to  all  that  were  in  the 
jailer's  oUia  [oikia)  premises,  including  the_  other 
prisoners.  Afterwards  the  jailer  brought  them  into  his 
oIko^  [oikos]  FAMILY  APARTMENTS,  a  distiuctiou  which  is 
not  preserved  in  our  English  version. 


92  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

country,  the  jailer  would  have  been  con- 
demned to  death  had  he  allowed  the  prisoners 
to  leave  the  prison.  And,  if  the  baptism 
was  to  be  by  immersion,  why  could  it  not 
have  been  deferred  till  the  following  day  ? 
How  often  do  our  Baptist  brethren,  for  con- 
venience' sake,  delay  an  immersion  for  days 
and  weeks  together!  Or,  supposing  that  the 
apostles  had  attempted  to  leave  the  prison, 
they  would  have  been  stopped  by  the  guard 
at  the  gates  ;  and  had  they  succeeded  in  gain- 
ing the  streets,  they  would  have  been  ar- 
rested by  the  watchmen  of  the  city. 

But  their  language  and  conduct  on  the 
following  day  prove,  beyond  a  doubt,  that 
they  had  not  left  the  prison.  When  the 
magistrates  sent,  saying,  "  Let  these  men  go," 
they  declined  going,  saying,  "Let  them  come 
themselves  and  fetch  us  out."  Could  these 
holy  men,  without  the  grossest  duplicity  and 
hypocrisy,  have  uttered  this  language,  after 
having  the  night  previous  stolen  out  of  the 
city  to  a  river  ? 

BAPTISM   IN"   CISTERNS. 

Some  Baptist  authors  suggest  that  perhaps 
there  were  cisterns  in  or  about  the  prison, 
and  that  in  one  of  these  the  jailer  was  im- 
mersed. But  how  can  a  person  be  dipped  in 
such  a  place  with  any  degree  of  decorum? 
Have  the  Baptist  friends  ever  tried  the  ex- 
periment?    True,  nothing  would  be  easier 


SYMBOLICAL   IMPORT  OF   BAPTISM.       93 

than  to  plunge  the  jailer  with  his  wife  and 
children,  down  into  a  cistern ;  but  how 
would  they  be  got  out  again,  unless  there 
was  at  hand  some  such  apparatus  as  was 
resorted  to  for  extricating  Jeremiah  from  the 
dungeon  ? — Jer.  xxxviii.  12. 

I  will  just  add  that  Chrysostom,  of  the 
fourth  century,  had  no  difficulty  in  deciding 
where  the  jailer  was  baptized.  "  Doubt  not, 
beloved,"  says  he,  "  for  the  grace  of  God  is 
perfect.  The  place  is  no  obstacle,  whether 
you  baptize  here,  or  in  a  ship,  or  on  the 
road.  Philip  baptized  on  a  road,  Paul  in 
prison." — Horn,  de  Regress. 

SYMBOLICAL   IMPORT   OF   BAPTISM. 

The  two  sacraments  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment have  each  a  distinct  symbolical  mean- 
ing. In  the  one,  the  application  of  water 
signifies  purity  of  heart.  In  the  other,  the 
death  of  Christ  is  shown  forth.  Our  Baptist 
brethren  strangely  confound  the  two  ordi- 
nances, as  though  they  were  alike  in  their 
meaning.  Baptism,  say  they,  is  designed 
to  convey  an  allusion  to  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  therefore 
the  candidate  should  be  buried  in  water. 
But  what  resemblance  can  they  point  out 
between  things  so  entirely  different  ?  Christ's 
death  was  by  crucifixion.  Nor  was  he 
buried  after  the  manner  of  this  country,  in 
a  grave  dug  in  the  earth,  and  covered  with 


94  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

mould ;  but  in  a  sepulchre,  cut  in  the  per- 
pendicular face  of  the  solid  rock.  Into  this 
little  apartment  his  lifeless  body  was  con- 
veyed through  a  small  door,  which  was  then 
closed  up  with  a  great  stone.  Here  it  was 
left  till  the  morning  of  the  third  day,  when 
the  stone  was  rolled  back,  and  the  Saviour 
reappeared  among  the  living.  Now  let  me 
ask,  In  what  respects  can  immersion  properly 
represent  such  a  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection ?  What  resemblance  is  there  be- 
tween laying  a  dead  body  in  a  little  room, 
excavated  in  the  side  of  a  hill,  closing  the 
entrance  with  a  rock,  and  leaving  it  there 
three  days — I  say,  what  resemblance  is  there 
between  this,  and  suddenly  plunging  a  person 
under  water  and  lifting  him  out  again  ?  The 
similitude  is  little  better  than  that  of  the 
blind  man,  who  supposed  that  the  light  of 
the  sun  was  like  the  noise  of  a  cannon.  It 
is  to  no  purpose  that  our  brethren  urge  that 
Jonah,  in  the  belly  of  the  great  fish,  bore  a 
likeness  to  Christ  in  his  burial ;  for  the  only 
point  of  resemblance  to  which  the  Saviour 
refers  in  Matt.  xii.  40,  is  duration  ;  namely, 
*•  three  days  and  three  nights,"  the  very 
point  in  which  immersion  most  signally 
lails. 

"  BURIED  WITH  CHRIST  BY  BAPTISM." 

But,  say  our  opponents,  we  must  be 
buried  by  baptism.  Be  it  so  ;  but  how,  and 
with  what  baptism  ?  Let  an  inspired  apostle 
answer. 


BURIED  WITH  CHRIST  BY  BAPTISM.      95 

Eom.  vi :  1 — 6.  "  What  shall  we  say 
then  ?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace 
may  abound  ?  God  forbid ;  how  shall  we 
that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein? 
Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized 
into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness 
of  his  resurrection  ;  knowing  this,  that  our 
old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body 
of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth 
we  should  not  serve  sin." 

Here  the  apostle  notices  a  common  objec- 
tion made  against  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  ;  namely,  that  it  encouraged  men 
to  sin,  because  grace  abounded.  He  replies 
to  it,  by  showing  that  a  complete  spiritual 
union  exists  between  Christ  and  believers ; 
and  that  this  union  affords  the  best  possible 
security  for  their  continuance  in  holiness. 
Thus  the  objection  is  satisfactorily  disposed 
of.  But  if  we  suppose  that  the  apostle  is 
here  speaking  of  a  burial  in  water,  we  make 
him  argue  most  inconclusively ;  for  we 
make  him  say,  that  notwithstanding  the 
freeness  of  divine  grace,  believers  are 
secured  against  sinful  compliances  by  the 
circumstance    that  they  were  once   buried 


96  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

in  water !  This  is  worse  than  no  answer 
to  the  objection,  for  it  leads  at  once  to 
the  monstrous  dogma  of  baptismal  regene- 
ration. 

Besides,  if  we  suppose  a  literal  burial  by 
dipping  to  be  here  intended,  we  must  also 
suppose  a  literal  crucifixion,  and  a  literal 
death  ;  and  so  be  chpped  to  death.  By  the 
way  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  a  Baptist 
missionary  in  Calcutta  once  made  a  version 
of  the  New  Testament,  in  modern  Arme- 
nian, in  which  he  translated  baptize  by  a 
word  which  signifies  to  droion  ;  e.  ^.,  "  Go 
teach  all  nations,  drowning  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  &c."  This  is  certainly 
dipping  to  death  with  a  witness.  The  fact 
is  stated  on  the  authority  of  a  returned  mis- 
sionary.    See  Baher  on  Baj^tism,  j).  79. 

"BAPTIZED   INTO   JESUS   CHRIST." 

But  the  apostle,  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, is  not  speaking  of  an  external 
ordinance,  but  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit, 
by  which  we  are  united  to  Christ,  and  be- 
come one  with  him  in  his  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection.  He  does  not  affirm  that  all 
who  were  baptized  m  the  name  of  Christ, 
were  baptized  into  his  death.  lie  asserts 
this  of  tliose  only  who  were  "  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ ;"  a  description  implying  in- 
finitely more  than  mere  water  baptism. 
The  whole  Church  to  whom  he  was  writing, 


"  BAPTIZED  INTO  JESUS  CHRIST."  97 

had  doubtless  been  baptized  in  the  name  of 
Christ ;  but  it  did  not  follow  that  they  were 
all  baptized  into  his  death,  and  therefore  he 
discriminates.  "aSo  many  of  us^^''  says  he, 
"  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  death."  To  be  baptized 
into  Christ  is  to  become  a  living  member  of 
his  mystical  body  by  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit ;  for  says  the  apostle,  "  By  one  Spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body." — 1  Cor. 
xii.  13. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  understand  the 
meaning  of  Paul,  in  the  passage  under  dis- 
cussion. He  argues  that  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  grace  cannot  lead  to  licen- 
tiousness, because  the  justified  believer  is 
united  to  Christ  by  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  and  is,  therefore,  one  with  him  iu 
his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  "  So 
many"  as  had  received  the  spiritual  bap- 
tism were  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  as  to 
their  former  life,  and  had  risen  again  to  a 
new  life  of  holiness ;  just  as  Christ  died, 
was  buried,  and  rose  again  to  a  new  and 
more  exalted  state  of  existence.  The  same 
general  remarks  will  apply  to  Colossians  ii. 
10 — 12.  "  And  ye  are  complete  in  him  who 
is  the  head  of  all  principality  and  power ; 
in  whom,  also,  ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  put- 
ting off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh, 
by  the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are 
9 


98  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  ope- 
ration of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead." 

Ilere,  again,  the  apostle  describes  the 
properties  of  a  saving  union  with  Christ,  by 
which  believers  are  made  one  with  him, 
in  his  circumcision,  death,  burial,  and  re- 
surrection. They  are  thus  "complete  in 
him."  The  circumcision  received  by  the 
Colossians  was  spiritual ;  for  it  was  "  made 
without  hands,"  and  consisted  in  "  putting 
off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  Of 
course,  then,  the  baptism  mentioned  is 
spiritual.  It  is  attended  by  a  resurrection 
to  a  life  of  faith.  Says  the  apostle, ''  Where- 
^?^,"  that  is,  in  this  baptism,  "ye  are  risen 
again  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God."  Can  this  possibly  apply  to  an  exter- 
nal ordinance  ?  Simon  Magus  was  duly  bap- 
tized with  water.  And  did  he,  therefore, 
rise  to  a  new  and  holy  life,  "through  the 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God  ?"  Here,  again, 
we  see  that  the  Baptist  interpretation  of  the 
phrase,  "  buried  in  baptism,"  leads  inevita- 
bly to  baptismal  regeneration — a  doctrine 
already  avowed  by  a  large  class  of  immer- 
sionists,  but  daily  contradicted  by  the  un- 
godly lives  of  thousands  who  have  submitted 
to  the  external  ordinance. 


"  ONE  BAPTISM."  99 


In  Eph.  iv :  3 — 5,  Paul  writes  thus : 
*' Endeavouring  to  keep  the  unity  of  tlie 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  There  is  one 
body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called 
in  one  hope  of  your  calling ;  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  haptismy 

The  Baptist  brethren  assume  that  the 
apostle  is  here  speaking  of  water-baptism, 
and  that  his  meaning  is,  "  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  dipping P  But  this  is  begging 
the  question.  We  have  already  shown  that 
scripture  baptism  does  not  at  all  imply  dip- 
ping. "  But,"  say  they,  "  as  there  is  one 
baptism,  then,  if  immersion  is  right,  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  is  wrong,  and  is  no  bap- 
tism." I  answer,  so  might  the  Dunker 
brethren  say,  "If  we  are  right  in  dipping 
three  times,  then  dipping  but  once  is  wrong, 
and  is  no  baptism  at  all."  So  might  Epis- 
copalians say,  "  There  is  but  one  Church  of 
Christ,  and  if  we  are  right  in  having  diocesan 
bishops,  those  who  are  without  them  are 
wrong,  and  are  no  Church  of  Christ."  So 
might  the  Roman  Catholics  say,  "  There  is 
one  ordinance  of  marriage,  and  if  we  are 
right  in  using  the  Popish  ceremony,  all 
others  are  wrong  and  have  no  valid  mar- 
riages among  them  !" 

The  Baptist  friends  have  a  wonderful 
facility  in  finding  water  where  we  can  find 
none.     We  see  none  in  the  passage  under 


100  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

consideration.  The  apostle  is  discussing 
the  sublime  doctrine  of  the  christian  unities, 
and  it  were  amazing  if,  while  soaring  among 
such  lofty  themes,  he  should  suddenly  drop 
down  to  the  water.  We  think,  therefore, 
that  it  will  agree  better  with  the  context 
to  suppose  that  by  the  "one  baptism,"  he 
means  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  In  this 
view,  his  words  may  be  paraphrased  thus : 
"  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  whom  ye  be- 
lieve, one  faith  by  which  ye  are  saved, 
one  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  ye 
are  baptized  into  one  body." — See  1  Cor. 
xii.  13. 

ALLUSIONS  TO  BAPTISM  BY  AFFUSION. 

In  1  John  V.  8,  we  read  thus :  "  There 
are  three  that  bear  witness  on  earth,  the 
Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood  ;  and 
these  three  agree  in  one."  The  Holy  Ghost 
the  Sanctifier,  the  water  of  baptism,  and  the 
blood  of  Christ  symbolized  by  the  sacra- 
mental cup,  are  here  intended  by  the  sacred 
writer.  The  Spirit  is  poured  out,  the  blood 
of  Christ  was  shed ;  and,  to  complete  the 
agreement,  the  water  of  baptism  must  be 
poured,  or  shed,  upon  the  subject. 

In  Titus  iii.  5,  6,  Paul  says:  "Accord- 
ing to  his  mercy  he  saved  us  by  the  washing 
of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."      The 


SPEINKLING  IS  CLEANSING.  101 

phrase,  "  washing  of  regeneration,"  though 
it  signifies  the  new  birth,  contains  an  allusion 
to  the  water  of  baptism  as  its  external 
symbol.  And  this  "  washing,"  let  it  be 
observed,  is  shed ;  in  the  Greek,  titxtev  {ex- 
echeeri)  poured  OUT  on  us  ;  thus  showing  that 
baptism  by  affusion  was  practised  in  the 
apostle's  days. 

It  was  foretold  of  Christ  that  he  should 
"  sprinkle  many  nations." — Isa.  lii.  15.  This, 
though  relating  to  the  purifying  efficacy  of 
the  blood  and  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  like 
many  other  passages,  comprehends  the  sign 
with  the  thing  signified.  It  was  literally  ful- 
filled when  Christ  commanded  his  disciples 
to  baptize  "  all  nations." 

SPKINKLING  IS   CLEANSING. 

Heb.  X.  22 — "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true 
heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith ;  having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and 
our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  Here 
the  apostle  speaks,  ^irs^,  of  the  purification 
of  the  heart  and  conscience  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and,  secondly,  of  the  sign  correspond- 
ing therewith,  namely,  the  external  washing 
of  baptismal  water,  sprinkled  on  the  body. 
Our  Baptist  brethren  say,  indeed,  that  sprink- 
ling is  no  washing.  I  answer,  neither  is  dip- 
ping a  person  with  his  clothes  on,  a  washing 
of  his  body,  in  a  literal  sense  of  the  word. 
9* 


102  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

If  a  man  puts  bis  gloves  on,  and  then  dips 

his  hands  in  water,  is  that  a  washing  of  his 
hands  ?  Sprinkling,  we  aver,  under  both 
dispensations,  has  held  the  chief  place  as  a 
symbol  of  purification  ;  and  to  say  that  it  is 
not  cleansing,  is  to  contradict  God  himself, 
who  says,  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean." — Ezek.  xxxvi. 
25.  It  is  placed  by  Paul  among  "divers 
washings." — Heb.  ix.  10  and  13.  And  it  is 
by  the  sprinkling  of  his  blood  that  the  Ke- 
deemer  has  '•  washed  us  from  our  sins."  But, 
say  the  Baptists,  when  Paul  speaks  of  the 
body  being  washed,  he  means  the  i6'AoZdZ)oc?2// 
and  so  the  whole  person  must  be  washed. 
But  did  the  Saviour  mean  his  whole  body, 
when  he  declared  of  the  woman  of  Bethany, 
that  she  had  anointed  his  body  for  its  burial? 
She  had  merely  poured  the  ointment  on  his 
head. — Mark  xiv.  3-8. 

Peter's  inkling  for  water. 

"  What  good,"  asks  the  immersion ist,  "  can 
a  little  water  do  you  ?"  In  reply,  I  ask  him. 
What  good  can  much  water  do  you  ?  Nay  ; 
what  good  can  a  mouthful  of  bread  and  a 
sup  of  wine,  in  the  sacramental  feast,  do  a 
person  ?  The  quantity  of  the  element  used 
is  just  as  important  in  the  one  ordinance  as 
in  the  other.  Let  us  guard  against  the  error 
Peter    once   committed. — John    xiii.    8-10. 


THE   OPINIONS   OF   LEARNED   MEN.     103 

When  Jesus  said  to  him,  "  If  I  wash  thee 
not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me,"  Peter,  like 
many  in  our  day,  took  up  the  idea,  that  it 
was  the  external  washing  that  was  to  do  him 
good ;  and  hence  he  thought,  the  more  water 
the  better.  He  said,  "  Lord,  not  my  feet  only, 
but  also  my  hands  and  my  head."  But  Jesus 
reproved  his  carnal  views,  saying,  "  He  that 
is  washed  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet, 
but  is  clean  every  whit." 

THE   OPINIONS   OF   LEAKNED  MEN. 

Most  of  the  writers  on  the  Baptist  side  of 
the  controversy,  when  they  find  themselves 
hard  pressed  with  scripture  arguments,  take 
refuge  in  human  authority.  Some  of  their 
treatises  contain  little  more  than  extracts, 
not  unfrequently  garbled,  from  authors 
whose  opinions  were  more  or  less  favourable 
to  immersion.  But  if  the  question  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  sufi'rages  of  learned  men  ; 
for  every  one  they  can  produce  in  favour  of 
immersion,  we  can  name  ten  against  it.  "We 
are  not  desirous  of  settling  matters  of  faith 
and  practice  in  this  way.  Men  of  learning 
are  eminently  serviceable  in  throwing  light 
on  the  meaning  of  scripture,  but  their  mere 
opinions  have  no  binding  authority.  Any 
unlettered  man,  who  is  favoured  with  good, 
strong  sense,  with  the  evidence  fairly  be- 
fore him,  is  as  likely  to  render  a  righteous 


104  THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

verdict  in  the  premises  as  the  most  profound 
scholar* 

*  Baptist  writers  and  public  speakers  are  in  the  habit 
of  asserting  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines 
decided  iu  favour  of  sprinkling  by  only  one  of  a  ma- 
jority— a  gross  misstatement !  According  to  Dr.  Light- 
foot,  a  leading  member  of  that  Assembly,  the  question 
was,  "  Sprinkling  being  granted,  whether  dipping  should 
be  tolerated  with  it."  On  this  the  vote  stood  twenty- 
four  to  twenty-five. — Pittman  and  LightfooVs  Works,  vol. 
xiii.  p.  300. 


HISTORY  OF  IMMERSION.  105 


CHAPTER  VI. 

History  of  Immersion — Its  origin — Dipping  of  persons 
naked — Immersion  and  Baptism  different  rites — Exist- 
ing traces  of  the  distinction  among  the  Armenians, 
.  Greeks,  and  Abyssiuians. 

HISTORY   OF   IMMERSION". 

Baptist  writers  fondly  assert  that  immer- 
sion was  practised  in  the  church  at  a  very 
early  period.  But  the  truth  is,  no  authen- 
tic account  can  be  produced  of  its  existence 
during  the  first  two  hundred  years  after 
Christ.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  well- 
attested  case  of  baptism  by  affusion  in  the 
second  century.  Nicephorus,  in  the  "  Magde- 
burg Centuries,"  relates  that  a  Jew,  travelling 
through  a  desert  in  company  with  some 
christians,  was  converted  ;  and  being  taken 
sick,  requested  baptism.  Having  no  water, 
they  sprinkled  him  with  sand,  {conspersere) 
He  unexpectedly  recovered,  and  was  taken 
to  Alexandria,  and  his  case  laid  before  the 
Greek  bishop,  who  decided  that  "the  Jew 


106  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

was  baptized,  provided  only  that  he  should 
anew  be  perfused,  or  sprinkled  with  water," 
{aqua  denuo  jperfunderetur) — Cent.  II.,  c.  6, 
p.  110. 

Tertullian,  who  flourished  during  the 
reigns  of  Severus  and  Caracalla,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  third  century,  is  the  first  who 
makes  any  distinct  mention  of  immersion. 
And  then  it  is  found  in  very  bad  company  ; 
for  it  is  associated  with  the  doctrine  that 
baptism  cleanses  from  sin.  To  what  extent 
immersion  was  practised  in  that  century,  we 
have  not  the  means  of  knowing.  At  all 
events,  it  was  far  from  being  the  exclusive 
mode.  We  are  told  of  Laurentius  baptizing 
a  soldier,  and  having  a  pitcher  of  water 
brought  for  that  purpose ;  also  of  five  mar- 
tyrs of  Samosata  sending  from  the  prison 
for  a  presbyter,  requesting  him  to  bring  a 
vessel  of  water  and  baptize  tliem.  WalVs 
Hist,  of  Bai^t.  and  Asseman.  Act.  Mart. 

AFFUSION   COEXISTING  WITH   IMMERSION. 

Even  after  immersion  had  become  the  pre- 
vailing practice  in  the  church,  baptism  by 
aftusion  alone  was  still  regarded  as  valid. 
On  one  occasion,  Cyprian  and  the  sixty-six 
bishops  who  were  with  him,  were  consulted 
on  the  question,  whether  those  who  had  been 
baptized  on  sick  beds  by  affusion  only, 
ought  to  be  re-baptized  if  they  recovered. 
His  decision  was,  "  that  the  water  of  aspersion 


ORIGIN   OF   IMMERSION.  107 

is  purification ;  from  which  it  appears  that 
sprinkling  is  sufficient,  instead  of  immersion ; 
and  whensoever  it  is  done,  if  there  be  a 
sound  faith  on  the  part  of  the  giver  and  re- 
ceiver, it  is  perfect  and  complete."  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  unanimous  sentim.ent 
of  the  ancient  church ;  so  that  the  Baptists 
of  modern  times  are  the  only  body  of  chris- 
tians that  ever  existed,  who,  on  the  assumption 
that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism,  have 
excluded  all  others  from  their  communion. 
The  Eev.  Kobert  Hall,  the  greatest  light 
that  church  ever  produced,  says  of  his  close 
communion  brethren,  that  "  in  withholding 
the  signs  from  those  who  are  in  possession 
of  the  thing  signified,  in  refusing  to  commu- 
nicate the  symbols  of  the  great  sacrifice  to 
those  who  are  equally  with  themselves 
sprinkled  by  its  blood,  and  sharers  of  its 
efficacy,  in  dividing  the  regenerate  into  two 
classes,  believers  and  communicants,  and 
confining  the  church  to  the  narrow  limits  of 
a  sect,  they  have  violated  more  maxims  of 
antiquity^  and  receded  further  from  the  example 
of  the  apostles^  than  any  class  of  christians  on 
record^     On  Communion^  pp.  74,  75. 

ORIGIN   OF   IMMERSION. 

"  But  how  came  immersion  into  use  at  so 
early  a  period,  if  it  was  not  the  apostolic 
mode?"  The  answer  is  not  difficult.  A 
very  large  proportion  of  the  first  converts 


108  THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

to  Christianity  were  Jews,  many  of  whom 
retained  a  strong  attachment  to  the  Mosaic 
ritual. — See  Acts  xv.  That  ritual  compre- 
hended "  divers  washings,"  which  seem  to  be 
referred  to  in  Heb.  vi.  2,  where  the  sacred 
writer  specifies  "  the  doctrine  of  baptisms'* 
as  one  of  the  subjects  of  dispute  among  the 
Hebrew  converts.  They  were,  moreover, 
familiar  with  the  custom  of  the  Jewish 
church,  to  require  the  proselytes  from  Pagan- 
ism to  be  thoroughly  washed,  previously  to 
being  circumcised.  With  all  their  violent 
prejudice  in  favour  of  the  ancient  ritual,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  in  some  churches,  where 
their  influence  was  paramount,  they  should 
insist  that  the  converts  from  heathenism 
should  be  cleansed  from  all  filthiness  of  the 
flesh,  previously  to  baptism.  An  addition, 
not  important  m  itself^  thus  made  to  the  sim- 
ple rite  administered  by  the  apostles,  easily 
gained  ground  in  an  age  of  superstitious 
formalism.  When  in  after  times  the  doctrine 
was  inculcated  that  baptism  cleansed  from 
sin,  this  preparatory  bathing  acquired  im- 
mense importance,  and  during  the  dark  ages 
gained  an  almost  universal  prevalence.  At 
first  the  bathing,  styled  by  Justin  Martyr  a 
"  washing,"  -Kowpov  {loutron\  was  kept  separate 
and  distinct  from  baptism,  which  was  by 
pouring.  But  in  process  of  time  the  two 
were,  to  a  great  extent,  confounded  ;  and 
then  we  read  of  three  immersions,  KaTah><rui 
{Jcataduseis\  with  the  further  addition  of  ex- 


DIPPING  OF  PERSONS  NAKED.         109 

orcisms,  two  anointings,  the  "use  of  salt, 
milk,  and  honej,  clothing  the  newly  baptized 
in  white  raiment,  and  other  ceremonies. 

DIPPING  OF   PERSONS  NAKED. 

But  the  preparatory  immersion  was  never 
administered  to  any  one  in  his  clothing; 
that  is  a  novelty  of  more  modern  times. 
The  ancient  immersionists  never  dreamed 
of  washing  the  body  of  the  candidate  through 
two  or  three  thicknesses  of  clothing.  They 
would  no  more  attempt  such  a  thing,  than 
we  would  set  about  washing  hands  and  feet 
without  removing  gloves,  shoes,  or  stockings. 
The  truth  in  regard  to  this  matter,  though 
for  a  while  denied  or  concealed,  is  now  gen- 
erally admitted.  The  Baptist  historian, 
Kobinson,  who  wrote  by  request  of  the  Bap- 
tist ministers  of  London,  says  expressly: 
"The  primitive  christians  baptized  naked. 
Nothing  is  easier  than  to  give  proof  of  this, 
by  quotations  from  the  authentic  writings 
of  the  men  who  administered  baptism;  and 
who  certainly  knew  in  what  way  they  them- 
selves performed  it.  There  is  no  ancient 
historical  fact  better  authenticated  than  this. 
The  evidence  does  not  go  on  the  meaning  of 
the  single  word  naked,  for  then  a  reader 
might  suspect  allegory ;  but  on  many  facts 
reported,  and  many  reasons  assigned  for  the 
practice.  Chrysostom  criminates  Theophi- 
lus  because  he  had  raised  a  disturbance  with- 
10 


110  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

out,  wTiich  SO  frightened  the  women  in  the 
baptistery,  who  had  just  stripped  themselves 
in  order  to  be  baptized,  that  they  fled  naked 
out  of  the  room,  without  having  time  to  con- 
sult the  modesty  of  their  sex." 

Wall,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  states 
positively  that  "  the  ancient  christians,  when 
they  were  baptized  by  immersion,  were  all 
baptized  naked,  whether  they  were  men, 
women,  or  children." 

IMMERSION  AND   BAPTISM   DIFFERENT  RITES. 

These  writers  might  have  stated  an  addi- 
tional fact  of  great  importance.  The  chris- 
tian females  of  that  period  were  not  so  ut- 
terly regardless  of  common  decency  as  to 
appear  disrobed  in  the  presence  of  men. 
Many  of  them,  as  we  know,  carried  their 
notions  of  modesty  to  such  an  extreme,  as 
not  even  to  allow  their  faces  to  be  seen  by 
any  of  the  other  sex,  out  of  their  own  fami- 
lies. Can  any  one  imagine,  then,  that  they 
would  suffer  the  priests  to  come  near  them 
while  in  a  state  of  perfect  nudity  ?  Let  those 
believe  it  who  can  !  It  is  quite  plain  that  the 
candidates  could  not  have  been  seen  by  the 
minister  officiating  till  the  ceremony  of  bath- 
ing was  over.  This  is  made  to  appear  from 
the  testimony  of  Epiphanius,  bishop  of  Con- 
stantia,  who  wrote  in  the  fourth  century. 
*'  There  are,"  says  he,  "  also  deaconesses  in 
the  church ;  but  this  office  was  not  instituted 


ANCIENT  PICTORIAL  REPRESENTATIONS.   Ill 

as  a  priestly  function,  nor  has  it  any  interfe- 
rence with  'priestly  administrations  ;  but  it  was 
instituted  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  a 
due  regard  to  the  modesty  of  the  female  sex, 
especially  at  the  time  of  baptismal  washing, 
and  while  the  person  of  the  woman  is  naked ; 
that  she  may  not  he  seen  hy  the  men  performing 
the  sacred  service,  but  by  her  only  who  is  ap- 
pointed to  take  charge  of  the  woman,  during 
the  time  that  she  is  nahed^^  This  extract 
proves  that  so  late  as  the  fourth  century  the 
immersion  and  the  baptism  were  treated  as 
two  distinct  things.  The  minister  did  not 
see  the  candidate  till  the  ceremony  of  wash- 
ing was  over. 

ANCIENT  PICTORIAL  REPRESENTATIONS. 

This  distinction  may  be  recognized  in 
many  pictorial  representations  transmitted 
to  us  from  a  remote  antiquity.  In  these 
works,  the  artist,  not  being  able  to  exhibit 
the  two  different  acts  in  the  same  piece,  se- 
lected the  baptism,  as  the  really  important 
part  of  the  solemn  service ;  at  the  same  time 
skilfully  placing  before  the  eye  the  eviden- 

*  The  above  extract  is  taken  by  Mr.  C.  Taylor  from 
Casaubon's  Antiquities,  Exerc.  XVI.  Dr.  Wall  supposes 
that  the  woman  may  have  been  first  disrobed  and  im- 
mersed up  to  the  neck,  and  that  then  the  priest  was  intro- 
duced to  immerse  the  head — an  arranticement  which  would 
give  no  great  relief  to  female  modesty.  The  priest  did 
not  see  them  till  they  were  again  dressed. 


112  THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

ces  of  a  previous  immersion.  Mr.  C.  Taylor 
has  furnished  copies  of  several  of  these  an- 
cient pictures.  I  will  just  notice  two  or 
three. 

One  is  the  baptism  of  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  in  the  fourth  century.  He  is  naked, 
and  seated  in  a  large  vase,  in  which  he  has 
just  performed  an  ablution.  Eusebius,  the 
bishop,  is  pouring  water  on  his  head  from  a 
bowl  or  basin. 

Another  is  the  baptism  of  a  boy  of  tea 
or  twelve  years  of  age.  He  is  unclothed,  in 
a  standing  posture,  with  his  hands  raised 
toward  heaven.  The  priest  is  pouring  water 
on  his  head  from  a  pitcher.  This  plate  is 
now  at  Kome,  but  is  the  work  of  Greek 
artists. 

A  third  depicts  two  candidates  undressed 
and  kneeling  on  the  ground.  The  minister 
is  pouring  water  on  them  from  a  small  vase. 
A  large  font  of  water  appears  on  tlie  left, 
where  they  have  undergone  the  customary 
purification.  Beside  it,  kneeling  in  prayer, 
is  a  third  candidate,  about  to  perform  the 
preparatory  ablution. 

These  are  all  works  of  ancient  artists ;  and 
they  could  have  had  no  possible  motive  for 
misrepresenting  the  prevailing  practice. 


EXISTING  TBACES  OF  THE   DISTINCTION.  113 


EXISTING  TRACES   OF  THE  DISTINCTION. 

The  Armenians,  one  of  tlie  oldest  christian 
sects  in  existence,  administer  baptism  by  dip- 
ping thrice  and  sprinkling  thrice.* 

Deylingius,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Booth,  in  his 
"  Pedobaptism  Examined,"  writes :  "  So  long 
as  the  apostles  lived,  as  many  believe,  immer- 
sion only  was  used;  to  which  afterwards, 
perhaps,  they  added  a  kind  of  affusion,  such 
as  the  Greeks  practise  at  this  day,  after 
having  performed  the  trine  immersion." 
The  fact  that  the  Greeks  do  practise  a  kind 
of  affusion  after  immersion,  is  quite  to  our 
purpose.  Whether  the  pouring  or  the  im- 
mersion is  the  human  addition,  we  have  a 
right  to  decide  for  ourselves. 

From  a  detailed  view  of  the  rites  of  the 
Greek  Church,  drawn  up  by  an  Archbishop 
of  their  own,  and  published  by  Kromayer, 
{Scrut,  Relig.)  it  appears  that  they  frequently 
dip  their  infants  only  to  the  breast,  and  then 
pour  water  on  the  head  ;  thus  clearly  show- 
ing, that  the  immersion  and  the  baptism  are 
not  regarded  as  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  Daniel  Huber,  of  Kentucky,  in  a  letter 
to  the  editor  of  The  Pedohaptist,  published 
at  Danville,  writes:  "I  resided  upwards  of 
three  years  in  the  capital  of  the  Grand 
Seignior's  dominions,  in  a  Greek  family  of 


*  See  the  American  Encyclopedia,  and  Ker  Porter's 
Travels  in  Armenia. 
10* 


114  THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

tbe  first  respectability.  During  tbat  time,  I 
was  present  at  four  baptisms — two  in  the 
family,  and  two  in  the  immediate  neighbour- 
hood. The  company  were  all  seated  on  the 
sofas  around  the  room.  A  table  stood  in  the 
middle,  with  a  basin  of  water  on  it.  The 
Papa,  or  Priest,  was  then  sent  for,  who,  upon 
entering  the  room,  was  received  by  the  fiUher 
of  the  child,  and  led  to  the  baptismal  water, 
which  he  consecrated  with  a  short  prayer 
and  the  sign  of  the  cross ;  then  the  mother 
presented  her  babe,  which  he  laid  on  his  left 
arm ;  and  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  he  thrice  dipped  his  hand 
into  the  water,  and  dropped  some  of  it  on 
the  child's  forehead,  giving  it  a  name.  I 
may  here  remark,  that  I  never  heard,  during 
my  stay  in  Constantinople,  of  adult  baptisms, 
nor  of  the  ordinance  being  performed  by  im- 
mersion in  a  single  instance." 

The  Greeks  of  Constantinople  do  certainly 
practise  immersion  ;  and  yet  Mr.  Huber  was 
honest  in  his  statement.  He  witnessed  only 
the  baptism  proper,  and  was  not  aware  that 
a  preparatory  washing,  or  immersion,  had 
taken  place  in  another  apartment,  before  the 
arrival  of  the  priest. 

BAPTISM  IN  ABYSSINIA. 

But  the  practice  of  the  Abyssinian  church 
places  the  question  beyond  dispute.  That 
people  were  converted  to  Christianity,  and 


BAPTISM  IN  ABYSSINIA.  115 

received  their  ritual  from  the  judaizing 
church  of  Egypt,  about  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century.  They  still  receive  their 
bishop  from  Alexandria.  They  retain  cir- 
cumcision, and  other  Jewish  observances,  in 
connection  with  Christianity;  and  owing  to 
their  entire  seclusion  from  the  rest  of  the 
world,  have,  in  all  probability,  preserved 
their  religious  rites  unchanged  for  fifteen 
centuries.  Mr.  Salt,  an  English  consul,  who 
visited  that  country,  has  furnished  a  minute 
account  of  the  baptism  of  a  Mohammedan- 
boy,  at  which  he  was  present.  He  tells  us 
that  they  first  stripped  the  lad  of  all  his 
clothing,  and  "washed  him  all  over  very 
carefully  in  a  large  basin  of  water,"  which 
stood  outside  of  the  church.  He  was  then 
taken  to  another  place,  where  was  a  smaller 
font.  Here  "the  head  priest  laid  hold  of 
him,  dipping  his  own  hand  in  the  water,  and 
crossed  him  over  the  forehead,  pronouncing 
at  the  same  moment,  '  George,  I  baptize  thee 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost.'  The  whole  company  then  knelt 
down,  and  joined  in  reciting  the  Lord's 
Prayer."— p.  152. 

Here,  in  all  probability,  is  the  precise 
mode  of  baptism  which  existed  in  the  church 
of  Alexandria,  in  the  fourth  century.  It  is 
seen  at  once,  that  the  Jewish  ablution  was  a 
mere  preparation  for  the  baptism,  which  was 
administered  by  a  different  person,  from  a 
different  font,  and  with  different  words.     Mr. 


lis  THE   MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

C.  Taylor,  to  whom  the  writer  is  indebted  for 
some  valuable  suggestions,  concludes  his  in- 
vestigation of  the  subject  as  follows:  "There- 
fore, whoever  adopts  immersion  without^^o^ir- 
ing^  may  certainly  claim  all  the  credit  due 
to  the  revival  of  an  ancient  Jewish  cere- 
mony, signifying  death;  but  christian  hap- 
tism,  signifying  lifej  they  do  not  practised — 
p.  186. 


PART  II. 

THE  SUBJECTS  OE  BAPTISM. 

(in) 


SCRIPTUEE  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   I. 


History  of  infant  baptism — The  Greeks,  Armenians, 
Nestorians,  Syrians,  Abyssinians,  Waldeuses — The 
Petrobrussians — The  Pelagian  controversy — Council 
cf  Carthage — Testimony  of  Origen,  Tertullian,  Ireu- 


W.E  now  invite  attention  to  a  point  of 
difference,  by  far  the  most  important  of  any, 
between  the  Baptist  brethren  and  ourselves. 
"We  insist  that  not  only  adult  believers,  but 
their  infant  children  also,  have  a  right  to 
baptism.  They,  on  the  contrary,  contend 
that  none  but  believing  adults  are  entitled 
to  that  ordinance. 

These  brethren  display,  on  all  occasions, 
the  most  bitter  hostility  to  what  they  call 
infant  sprinhling^  and  assail  it  with  an  ob- 
jection which  we  may  as  well  consider  at 
the  outset.  They  cry  out  that  infant  ha/ptism 
is  one  of  the  abominations  of  Popery^  luhich 
was  unknown  in  the  church  during  the  prirai- 
tive  ages, 

(119) 


120  THE  SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

HISTORY  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

But  if  indeed  it  owes  its  origin  to  Popery, 
then  we  may  expect  to  find  some,  at  least, 
of  the  early  christian  sects  who  escaped  the 
authority  and  influence  of  Eome,  quite  free 
from  so  serious  an  innovation.  But  here, 
unfortunately  for  the  Baptists,  the  facts  are 
all  against  them.  Of  all  those  christian 
communities  which  were  never  under  the 
influence  of  Eome,  but  always  contended 
against  her,  there  is  not  one  which  does  not 
maintain  the  baptism  of  infants.  There  is, 
for  example : 

1.  The  Greek  Church,  which  nearly 
equals  in  numbers  that  of  Eome.  It  never 
yielded  in  the  least  to  the  Papal  power,  but 
resisted  it  from  the  beginning.  They  are 
a  high  authority  with  the  Baptists,  because 
they  practise  immersion.  But  it  is  noto- 
rious that  they  also  practise  infant  baptism. 

2.  The  Armenian  Church  is  another  of 
those  ancient  sects  which  never  had  any 
connection  with  Eome.  They  separated 
from  the  Greek  Church  at  an  early  period, 
and  seem  to  have  remained  faithful  to  their 
old  religion  and  worship.  They  are  at  this 
day  distinguished  among  the  Oriental  chris- 
tians for  superior  intelligence  and  purity  of 
morals.  They  practise  the  baptism  of 
infants — dipping  thrice  and  sprinkling 
thrice.* 

*  A  lew  Arincuiaus,  scattered  through  Italy,  Polaod, 


HISTORY   OF   IIs^FANT  BAPTISM.         121 

8.  The  ISTestorians,  or  more  properly 
the  Chaldeans,  of  Persia,  are  another 
branch  of  the  Greek  Church,  detached  from 
the  parent  stock  at  an  early  period.  They 
oppose  the  use  of  pictures  and  images  in  the 
churches,  and  in  some  other  respects  are 
conformed  to  the  simplicity  of  the  apostolic 
age.     They  baptize  children. 

4.  The  "Syrian-  Christians,  or,  as  they 
style  themselves.  The  Christians  of  St.  Thomas^ 
reside  on  the  coast  of  Malabar,  near  the 
Southern  extremity  of  India.  They  sprung 
from  the  Gentile  Church  of  Antioch,  in 
Syria,  and  take  their  name  from  the  apostle 
Thomas.  They  are  named  in  history  as  far 
back  as  A.  D.  356,  and  were,  at  that  time,  of 
considerable  standing.  From  their  isolated 
situation,  they  retain  more  strongly  the  fea- 
tures of  their  descent  from  the  earliest  chris- 
tian communities.  They  baptize  their  chil- 
dren, and  by  affusion. 

5.  The  Abyssinian  Church  is  a  branch 
of  the  Egyptian,  or  Coptic,  with  which  it 
still  retains  some  communication.  In  the 
16th  century,  powerful  efforts  were  made  by 
the  Pope  to  subject  them  to  his  authority, 
but  without  success.  They  practise  infant 
baptism. 

Gallicia,  Persia,  and  Mt.  Lebanon  in  Syria,  have  sub- 
mitted to  the  Pope's  jurisdiction,  on  the  express  condi- 
tion of  retaining  their  ancient  ceremonies  and  discipline. 
The  far  greater  part  of  the  sect  are  still  Monophysites, 
and  have  been  constantly  protected  by  the  Porte  against 
the  attempts  of  the  Romanists. 

11 


122  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 


THE  VAUDOIS   OR  WALDENSES. 

6.  The  Waldenses,  or  Vaudois,  of  Pied- 
mont, are  famed  as  witnesses  for  the  truth  in 
those  ages  of  darkness,  when  true  religion 
seemed  almost  extinct.  Secluded  in  their 
lonely  valleys  from  the  rest  of  the  world, 
they  seemed  to  have  preserved  the  simplicity 
and  purity  of  the  apostolic  times,  when  all 
elsewhere  were  inundated  with  error.  That 
they  refused  to  yield  obedience  to  Eome, 
and  were  on  this  account  most  cruelly  and 
brutally  persecuted,  is  known  to  all  ^the 
world.  It  is  equally  notorious  that  they 
maintained  infant  baptism.  Sir  Samuel 
Morland,  who  visited  them  in  1657,  by  ap- 
pointment of  the  British  Government,  com- 
piled their  history  from  books  and  manu- 
scripts which  had  escaped  the  flames  of  the 
Inquisition.  From  one  of  their  most  an- 
cient Confessions,  furnished  by  this  author, 
we  take  the  following  extract : 

"  We  have  but  two  sacramental  signs  left 
us  by  Jesus  Christ :  the  one  is  Baptism  ;  the 
other  is  the  Eucharist,  which  we  receive  to 
show  that  our  perseverance  in  the  faith  is  such 
as  we  promised  luhen  we  ivere  hajJtized,  being 
little  children;  and  moreover,  in  remembrance 
of  that  great  benefit  given  to  us  by  Jesus 
Christ,  when  he  died  for  our  redemption, 
and  washed  us  with  his  precious  blood." — 
Page  39. 

John  Paul  Perrin,  a  descendant  of  these 


THE  VAUDOIS  OR  WALDENSES.        123 

people,  wrote  a  very  full  account  of  their 
Doctrine  and  Order.  It  seems  that  their 
enemies  had  charged  them  with  denying 
the  baptism  of  infants,  to  which  their  histo- 
rian thus  replies : 

"  The  fourth  calumny  was  touching  bap- 
tism, which,  it  is  said,  they  [the  Waldenses] 
denied  to  little  infants  ;  but  from  this  impu- 
tation they  quit  themselves  as  follows: — 
The  time  and  place  of  those  that  are  to  be 
baptized  is  not  ordained ;  but  the  charity 
and  edification  of  the  church  and  congrega- 
tion must  serve  for  a  rule  therein,  &c. ;  and, 
therefore,  they  to  whom  the  children  were 
nearest  allied,  brought  their  infants  to  be 
baptized,  as  their  parents,  or  any  other  whom 
God  had  made  charitable  in  that  kind." — 
Book  I.,  ch.  iv.,  p.  15. 

Again  : 

"King  Lewis  XII.,  having  been  informed 
by  the  enemies  of  the  Waldenses,  dwelling 
in  Provence,  of  many  grievous  crimes  which 
were  imposed  upon  them,  sent  to  make  in- 
quisition in  those  places,  the  Lord  Adam 
Fumee,  Master  of  Requests,  and  a  doctor  of 
Sorbonne,  called  Parne,  who  was  his  con- 
fessor. They  visited  all  the  parishes  and 
temples,  and  found  neither  images,  nor  so 
much  as  the  least  show  of  any  ornaments 
belonging  to  their  masses  and  ceremonies 
of  the  Church  of  Rome ;  much  less  any  such 
crimes  as  were  ^imposed  upon  them ;  but 
rather  that  they  kept  their  Sabbaths  duly, 


124  THE  SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 

causing  their  cliildreyi  to  he  haptized  according 
to  the  order  of  the  primitive  church,  teaching 
them  the  articles  of  the  christian  faith,  and 
the  commandments  of  God." — Perrin  ;  Book 
I.,  ch.  vi.,  pp.  30,  31. 

I  am  sorry  to  remark  that  Mr.  William 
Jones,  a  Baptist,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Wal- 
denses,"  quoting  avowedly  from  Perrin  and 
other  authorities,  carefully  suppresses  every 
sentence  which  would  show  those  people  to 
have  been  Pedobaptists.  A  more  glaring 
falsification  of  history  has  hardly  ever  been 
committed  outside  of  the  Papal  church  I 

THE   PETROBRUSSIANS. 

In  spite  of  the  abundant  testimonies  ad- 
duced by  Perrin  and  others,  some  Baptist 
writers  persist  in  denying  that  the  Walden- 
ses  of  Piedmont  were  Pedobaptists.  And 
what  excuse  do  they  offer  for  contradicting 
the  solemn  professions  of  belief  and  practice, 
so  often  uttered  by  these  pious  witnesses  of 
the  truth?  Simply  this:  that  during  the 
twelfth  century  there  sprung  up  in  the  South 
of  France  a  small  sect  called  Petrohrussians^ 
who  refused  baptism  to  infants  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  incapable  of  salvation.  These 
people  were,  to  a  great  extent,  confounded 
with  the  Vaudois  or  Waldenses,  because  they 
had  frequent  intercourse,  and  made  common 
cause  with  them  against  the  Papists.  Soon 
after  the  death  of  their  founder,  Peter  dQ 


THE   PELAGIAN  COIS'TEOVEESY.        125 

Bruis,  they  dwindled  away  and  became  ex- 
tinct. And  here  let  it  be  noted,  that  this  is 
the  first  christian  society  recorded  in  history 
who  rejected  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  that 
they  did  so  expressly  on  the  assumption 
that  infants  were  not  capable  of  salvation. 

And  what  now  becomes  of  the  assertion, 
that  infant  baptism  is  an  innovation  of 
Popery  ?  We  have  seen  that  the  principle 
has  been  maintained  by  all  the  ancient  sects, 
without  exception,  who  separated  from  the 
great  body  of  the  church  before  Popery  ex- 
isted— by  communities  which  never  had  any 
connection  with  Kome — which  were  scattered 
far  apart,  in  the  interior  of  Persia,  in  a  re- 
mote corner  of  India,  in  the  far  off  regions 
of  Ethiopia,  and  in  the  secluded  valleys  of 
Piedmont.  All  with  equal  tenacity  have 
adhered  to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism. 

THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

If  now  we  go  back  to  a  period  within 
three  hundred  years  of  the  apostolic  age,  we 
shall  find  ample  evidence  that  no  christian 
society  that  refused  baptism  to  infants,  had 
then  existed.  About  that  time,  Pelagius 
published  the  doctrine  that  infants  are  born 
free  from  moral  defilement.  He  was  opposed 
with  great  vehemence  by  Augustine,  who 
pressed  him  with  this  powerful  argument: 
"  Why  are  infants  baptized  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  if  they  have  no  sin  ?"  "  Why  are 
11* 


126  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

they  washed  ia  the  laver  of  regeneration,  if 
they  have  no  pollution  ?"  Pelagius,  and 
Celestius,  his  principal  abettor,  were  greatly 
puzzled  and  embarrassed  with  this  argument, 
and  knew  not  how  to  evade  or  resist  its  force, 
without  plunging  still  deeper  in  difficulty. 
At  last  some  one  charged  upon  them  a  de- 
nial of  infant  baptism,  as  a  necessary  infer- 
ence from  their  doctrine.  Pelagius  became 
indignant.  "Baptism,"  says  he,  "ought  to 
be  administered  to  infants  with  the  same 
sacramental  words  which  are  used  in  the  case 
of  adult  persons."  "  Men  slander  me  as  if  I 
denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants." 
"  I  never  heard  of  any,  not  even  the  most 
impious  heretic  who  denied  baptism  to  in- 
fants ;  for  who  can  be  so  impious  as  to  hin- 
der infants  from  being  baptized,  and  born 
again  in  Christ,  and  so  make  them  miss  of 
the  kingdom  of  God?"  Celestius  also  con- 
fessed "  that  infants  were  to  be  baptized  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church." 
Augustine,  in  the  course  of  the  controversy, 
makes  the  sweeping  declaration,  "  that  he 
had  never  heard  of  any  christian,  whether 
catholic  or  sectary,  who  taught  any  other 
doctrine  than  that  infants  were  to  be  bap- 
tized."^ 

*  The  writer  of  the  article  Baptism  in  the  American 
Encyclopedia,  among  many  unfair  and  partial  statements, 
Bays,  ''  'Ihe  doctrine  of  St.  vVugustine  that  the  unbap- 
tized  were  irrevocal)ly  dannnMl,  changed  tiiis  delay  into 
baste,  and  made  the  baptism  of  childieu  general."    These 


THE  PELAGIAN  CONTROVERSY.   127 

Augustine  lived  in  Africa.  Pelagius  was 
a  native  of  Britain,  but  resided  a  long  time 
at  Kome,  then  the  centre  of  the  civilized 
world.  He  also  visited  the  principal 
churches  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa.  Ce- 
lestius  was  born  in  Ireland,  but  settled  per- 
manently at  Jerusalem.  All  three  were 
learned  men,  and  must  have  been  familiar 
with  the  early  christian  writers.  If  in  any 
part  of  the  world  there  had  been  a  church  or 
society,  which  denied  baptism  to  infants, 
they  must  have  read,  or  heard  of  it.  It  ap- 
pears, from  their  testimony,  that  no  such  so- 
ciety had  existed  within  the  memory  of  man. 

Passing  by  the  ample  testimonies  of  Chry- 
sostom,  Ambrose  and  others,  and  ascending 
to  a  still  earlier  period,  we  meet  increasing 
evidence  that  infant  baptism  was  an  estab- 
lished usage  of  the  primitive  church. 


are  bold  and  reckless  assertions.  Few  facts  are  better 
attested  in  history  than  that  the  baptism  of  children 
was  "  general,"  ages  before  the  appearance  of  Augustine  ; 
and  that  Father,  instead  of  holding  the  sentiment  im- 
puted to  him  above,  states  frankly,  in  his  book  against 
Julianus,  {Lib.  V.  cap.  8,)  Ego  non  dico  parvulos 
sine  baptismo  Christi  morienies  tantn  poena  esse  pledeiidos, 
lit  eis  non  nasci  potius  expediret.  "  I  do  not  say  that  in- 
fants dying  without  christian  baptism  will  suffer  such  a 
punishment,  as  that  it  would  be  better  for  them  if  they 
had  never  been  born." 

Another  Baptist  writer  asserts  that  Augustine  perse- 
cuted the  Doiiatists  for  denying  infant  baptism.  And 
yet  it  is  notorious  that  that  people  never  denied  it ;  on 
the  contrary,  the  48th  Canon  of  the  third  Council  of 
Carthage  respects  "  The  infants  baptized  by  the  Dona" 
lists." 


128  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

THE   COUNCIL   OF   CARTHAGE, 

About  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
the  apostles,  there  assembled  at  Carthage  a 
Council  of  sixty-six  bishops,  or  pastors,  over 
which  presided  the  martyr  Cyprian.  Fid  us, 
a  country  pastor,  proposed  to  it  a  query ; 
namely,  whether  an  infant  might  be  bap- 
tized before  it  was  eight  days  old.  The 
question,  let  it  be  noticed,  was  not  whether 
infants  ought  to  be  baptized,  for  that  was  a 
settled  point ;  but  whether  it  was  necessary 
to  wait  till  the  eighth  day  after  the  birth. 
The  following  is  the  unanimous  decision  of 
the  Council :  "  Whereas  you  judge  that  they 
must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three 
days  after  they  are  born,  and  that  the  rule 
of  circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  that  no 
one  should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  be- 
fore the  eighth  day  after  he  is  born,  we  were 
all  in  the  Council  of  a  very  different  opinion. 
As  for  what  you  thought  proper  to  be  done, 
no  one  was  of  your  mind  ;  but  we  all  rather 
judged  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  is 
to  be  denied  to  no  human  being  that  is 
born."  "And  this  rule,  as  it  holds  for  all, 
we  think  more  especially  to  be  observed  in 
reference  to  infants,  even  to  those  newly 
born."~%).  Exj'isL  %Q, 


TESTIMONY   OF   ORIGEN.  129 


TESTIMONY   OF   ORIGEN. 

This  celebrated  writer  was  born  at  Alex- 
andria, eighty-five  years  after  the  death  of 
the  last  apostle.  He  was  certainly  the  most 
learned  man  of  the  age.  He  was  educated  at 
Alexandria,  and,  to  acquire  knowledge,  he 
travelled  in  Cappadocia  and  Arabia,  in  Italy 
and  Greece;  and  spent  the  greater  part  of  his 
life  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  the  seat  of  the 
first  christian  churches,  where  he  could  not 
fail  to  become  intimately  acquainted  with 
their  principles  and  usages.  It  is  true  that, 
like  most  of  the  christian  fathers,  he  was  be- 
trayed into  some  serious  errors  in  doctrine. 
But  with  his  opinions  we  are  not  at  present 
concerned.  We  bring  him  forward  as  a 
witness  to  a  simple  matter  of  fact.  He  could 
not  be  mistaken  as  to  what  was  daily  occur- 
ring before  his  own  eyes,  and  there  was  no 
possible  motive  to  induce  him  to  deviate 
from  the  truth.  In  his  Homily  on  Leviticus, 
he  saj'-s :  "  Whereas  the  baptism  of  the 
church  is  given  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
infants  also  are,  by  the  usage  of  church,  bap- 
tized ;  when,  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants 
that  wanted  forgiveness  and  mercy,  the  grace 
of  baptism  would  be  needless  to  them." 

Again,  in  his  Homily  on  Luke:  "Infants 
are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Of 
what  sins  ?  or  when  have  they  sinned  ?  or 
how  can  any  reason  of  the  laver  in  their 
case  hold  good,  but  according  to  that  sense 


130  THE  SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

we  mention  even  now?  none  is  free  from 
pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  of  the  length 
of  one  day  upon  the  earth." 

Again,  in  his  Commentary  on  Romans : 
"For  this  also  it  was,  that  the  church  had 
had  from  the  apostles  a  tradition  [or  order] 
to  give  baptism  even  to  infants.  For  they 
to  whom  the  divine  mysteries  were  com- 
mitted, knew  that  there  is  in  all  persons  the 
natural  pollution  of  sin,  which  must  be  done 
away  by  water  and  the  Spirit." — Wall,  Vol. 
L,  pp.  104—106. 

INSPIRED  TRADITIONS. 

Baptist  writers  express  great  contempt  for 
what  Origen  styles,  "  a  tradition  from  the 
apostles."  They  forget  that  traditions  re- 
ceived from  inspired  men  are  widely  different 
from  those  fables  and  corrupt  glosses  by 
which  the  Jews  made  the  word  of  God  of 
none  effect.  Paul,  in  2  Thess.  ii.  15,  says : 
"Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold 
the  traditions  which  ye  have  been  taught, 
whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle."  Again,  in 
the  sixth  verse  of  the  third  chapter :  "  Now 
we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw 
yourselves  from  every  brother  that  walketh 
disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which 
he  received  of  us." 

If,  therefore,  the  primitive  christians  re- 
ceived a  tradition,   or  order,  from  ius])ircd 


INSPIRED   TRADITIONS.  131 

apostles  to  baptize  infants,  they  were  bound 
to  hold  it  fast  and  obey  it.  Origen  had 
every  opportunity  to  know  whether  such  an 
order  had  been  received  from  the  apostles. 
He  was  descended  from  a  christian  ancestry 
reaching  back  to  the  apostolic  age.  His 
pedigree  has  been  transmitted  to  us  by  a 
singular  providence.  Porphyry,  a  bitter 
enemy  to  Christianity,  represented  the  chris- 
tians as  a  degraded  people,  destitute  of  all 
science.  But  not  being  able  to  conceal  the 
splendid  literary  attainments  of  Origen,  he 
pretended  that  he  was  first  a  heathen,  and 
had  learned  their  philosophy.  In  order  to 
confute  this  falsehood,  Eusebius,  the  histo- 
rian, sets  forth  his  christian  descent.  It 
seems  that  his  father  suffered  martyrdom, 
and  that  his  grandfather  and  great-grand- 
father were  both  christians.  The  latter  must 
have  lived  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and 
might  have  heard  them  preach.  Such  is  the 
man  who  testifies  that  the  church,  the  whole 
church,  gave  baptism  to  infants,  and  had  re- 
ceived an  order  from  the  apostles  to  that 
effect.  What  now  becomes  of  the  assertion 
"  that  infant  baptism  is  one  of  the  abomina- 
tions of  Popery,  which  was  unknown  in  the 
church  during  the  primitive  ages  ?"  The 
testimony  of  Origen  completely  settles  the 
historical  question,  and  leaves  no  reasonable 
doubt  but  that  infant  baptism  prevailed  in 
the  apostolic  times. 


132  THE   SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 

TESTIMONY   OF   TERTULLIAN. 

This  remarkable  man,  born  fifty  years 
after  the  apostolic  age,  was  first  a  heathen. 
When  and  where  he  embraced  Christianity, 
does  not  appear,  though  as  a  writer  he  flour- 
ished chiefly  in  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century.  He  held  and  taught  the  opinion 
that  baptism  cleanses  from  the  guilt  of  all 
past  offences  ;  but  that  sins  committed  after 
baptism  are  next  to  unpardonable.  Pursu- 
ing his  own  doctrine  to  its  practical  results, 
he  pleaded  for  the  delay  of  baptism  till  the 
close  of  life,  or  at  least  till  the  critical  period 
of  temptation  had  passed,  in  order  that,  by 
a  single  operation,  the  sins  of  one's  life 
might  all  be  washed  away.  "  Therefore," 
says  he,  "  according  to  every  one's  condition 
and  disposition,  and  also  their  age,  the 
delaying  of  baptism  is  more  profitable, 
especially  in  the  case  of  little  children." 
He  then  specifies  a  hirge  class  of  adult  be- 
lievers, whom  he  would  dissuade  from  ap- 
proaching the  sacred  font.  "  For  no  less 
reason,"  says  he,  "  unmarried  persons  ought 
to  be  kept  off",  who  are  likely  to  come  into 
temptation  ;  as  well  those  who  were  never 
married,  on  account  of  their  coming  to  ripe- 
ness, as  those  in  widowhood,  for  the  miss  of 
their  partner ;  until  they  either  marry  or 
are  confirmed  in  continence." — Wall,  Vol.  I., 
pp.  93,  9-i.  On  this  testimony  of  Tertullian 
we  have  three  remarks. 


TESTIMONY   OF   TERTULLIAN.  133 

First.  He  urges  the  delay  of  baptism  in  the 
case  of  infants  and  unmarried  adults.  His 
advice  to  delay,  affords  the  strongest  possible 
evidence  that  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  well 
as  unmarried  adults,  was  the  popular  practice 
in  his  day.  For  why  seek  to  dissuade  from 
a  usage  which  had  never  existed  ? 

Second.  The  Baptists  are  not  correct  in 
saying  that  he  denied  infant  baptism.  He 
says  no  more  against  the  baptism  of  infants, 
than  against  that  of  unmarried  adults.  He 
w^ould  have  both  the  one  and  the  other  bap- 
tized in  case  of  sickness  and  danger  of  death. 
He  did  not  say  that  the  standing  practice 
of  the  church  in  regard  to  infants,  or  adults, 
was  unlawful^  or  that  it  was  of  recent  origin, 
or  a  novelty  unknown  to  the  apostles.  This 
it  would  have  suited  his  purpose  to  say,  if 
he  could  say  it ;  but  he  could  not.  On  the 
contrary,  he  advocated  delay  in  the  cases 
specified,  because  he  imagined  that  thereby 
the  parties  would  contract  less  guilt  during 
the  period  intervening  between  their  bap- 
tism and  death,  and  so  be  more  sure  of  sal- 
vation. This  was  one  of  those  odd  notions 
for  which  that  Father  was  remarkable. 

Third.  If  the  Baptists  will  infer,  from  the 
advice  given  by  Tertullian,  that  infant  bap- 
tism was  not  practised  in  the  apostolic  age, 
they  must  also  infer  that  the  baptism  of 
unmarried  adults  was  equally  unauthorized 
at  the  same  period. 
12 


134  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

TESTIMONY   OF   IREN^US, 

Ascending  to  a  still  earlier  period,  we 
come  to  Irenseus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  who 
wrote  about  sixty- seven  years  after  the 
apostles.  He  tells  us  how  eagerly  he  lis- 
tened to  the  instructions  of  Polycarp,  the 
disciple  of  John.  •'  I  remember,"  says  he, 
"  his  discourse  concerning  the  conversation 
he  had  with  John  the  apostle,  and  others 
who  had  seen  the  Lord;  how  he  rehearsed 
their  discourses,  and  what  he  heard  them, 
who  were  eye-witnesses  of  the  Word  of  Life, 
say  of  our  Lord,  and  of  his  miracles  and 
doctrine."  This  Iren83us,  in  his  book 
against  heresy,  writes  thus :  "  He  [Christ] 
came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself:  all,  I 
say,  who  by  him  are  born  again  unto  God ; 
{renascuntur  in  Deum ;)  infants,  and  little 
ones,  and  children,  and  youths,  and  elderly 
persons." — Lib.  ii.,  c.  39. 

The  phrase,  *'  regenerated  unto  God,"  was 
used  by  all  the  ancient  fathers  to  signify 
water  baptism,  in  conformity  to  their  notions 
of  Christ's  meaning,  when  he  said,  "Except 
a  man  be  born  of  water,"  kc.  We  know 
what  Irenxeus  meant  by  the  phrase,  for  he 
has  told  us  himself.  "Christ,"  says  he, 
*' committing  to  his  disciples  the  power  of 
regenerating  unto  God^  said  unto  them,  '  Go 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,'"  &c. — Lib, 
iii.,  c.  19.  Justin  Martyr  also,  speaking  of 
the  reception  of  candidates  into  the  church, 


INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  AN  INNOVATION.   185 

says :  "  They  are  regenerated  dpayewoJi^Tai  (ana- 
gennontai)  in  the  same  way  of  regeneration 
in  which  we  were  regenerated ;  for  they  are 
washed  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — 
Apol.  I.,  ad  Ant.  Pium. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  AN  INNOVATION. 

It  is  of  no  importance  in  the  present  dis- 
pute, whether  the  primitive  fathers  used 
words  properly  or  improperly.  It  is  not 
with  their  oipinions  that  we  are  now  con- 
cerned, but  with  their  testimony  to  a  matter 
of  fact.  That  Irenaeus  used  the  phrase,  "re- 
generated unto  God,"  to  signify  water  bap- 
tism, is  so  clear  and  incontestable  that  the 
leading  Baptist  writers  will  not  venture  to 
deny  it.  In  what  light,  then,  are  we  to  re- 
gard that  bold  and  confident  assertion  with 
which  we  are  so  often  greeted,  that  infant 
baptism  is  an  innovation  of  Popery,  un- 
known in  the  primitive  ages?  Is  it  not 
evidently  an  unfounded  calumny,  supported 
alone  by  prejudice  and  bigotry,  but  contra- 
dicted by  the  whole  tenor  of  ecclesiastical 
history  ?  Here  is  Irenaeus,  of  Lyons,  who 
may  be  called  a  spiritual  grandchild  of  the 
apostle  John — a  man  who  made  eager  in- 
quiry, and  treasured  up  the  conversations 
which  the  blessed  martyr  Polycarp  repeated 
from  the  apostles.  He  is  a  competent  and 
disinterested  witness  to  facts ;  and  his  Ian- 


136  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

gnage  proves  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was 
an  established  usage  of  the  church  in  his 
days.  Then  the  famous  Origen,  with  his 
line  of  christian  ancestors  reaching  back  to 
the  times  of  the  apostles,  testifies  again  and 
again,  that  infants  were  baptized  according 
to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church ;  nay, 
that  the  church  had  received  a  tradition,  or 
order,  from  the  apostles  to  baptize  infants. 
In  this  testimony,  all  the  early  christian 
writers  unite ;  and  such  a  phenomenon,  as  a 
church  or  society  of  men  denying  the  law- 
fulness of  infant  baptism,  is  unheard  of  for 
more  than  a  thousand  years  after  Christ! 
Of  a  truth,  that  man  must  be  fast  bound  in 
the  fetters  of  unconquerable  prejudice,  who, 
in  view  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  will  deny 
that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  practised 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles. 

THE   APOSTLES  NOT  BAPTISTS. 

Our  opponents  claim  that  the  apostles 
preached  and  practised  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  modern  Baptists.  But  if 
so,  how  came  it  to  pass  that  almost  imme- 
diately after  their  death,  a  great,  sudden,  and 
radical  change,  in  a  matter  of  such  vast  im- 
portance, took  place  throughout  the  whole 
christian  world  ?  How  could  so  complete  a 
transition  from  the  baptism  of  none  but 
adults,  to  that  of  infants,  be  brought  about 
in  the  space  of  a  few  years,  without   the 


AN   ILLUSTRATION.  137 

slightest  opposition  being  heard  of,  from 
any  quarter  ?  How  was  it  that,  before  the 
apostles  were  fairly  cold  in  their  graves,  a 
revolution  should  be  effected,  so  silently  that 
the  best  informed  men  in  after  times  were 
entirely  ignorant  of  it  ?  How  could  the 
gates  of  hell  so  suddenly  and  universally 
prevail  against  the  church,  that  not  one  of 
Timothy's  "  faithful  men"  remained  to  raise 
his  protesting  voice  against  the  wide  spread 
corruption  ?  Why  was  it  that  not  a  single 
sect,  or  church,  or  society,  remained  to 
testify  to  the  ages  following,  that  the  apos- 
tles were  Baptists  ? 

AN  ILLUSTRATION. 

Let  us  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  the 
great  body  of  the  Baptist  church  in  the 
United  States  should,  in  the  course  of  fifty 
or  a  hundred  years,  become  Pedobaptists. 
Could  so  important  a  change  in  the  body 
take  place  without  a  fierce  and  protracted 
struggle,  such  as  would  be  strongly  marked 
in  the  page  of  history  ?  And  would  not 
some  fragments  of  that  large  denomination 
be  seen  to  cling  with  increased  obstinacy  to 
the  old  principles,  and  remain  to  testify 
against  the  defection  of  their  brethren  ? 
And  then,  if  some  future  historian  should 
pretend  that  the  Baptist  church  had  never 
changed — that  it  had  always,  and  from  the 
first,  practised  infant  baptism — how  easy  it 
12* 


128  THE    SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 

would  be  to  silence  the  assertion  by  an  appeal 
to  the  records  of  the  sharp  controversy  which 
attended  the  change,  and  to  the  little  sur- 
viving churches  which  remained  faithful  to 
the  ancient  discipline ! 

Let  us  now  apply  the  illustration  to  the 
case  in  hand.  From  fifty  to  a  hundred  years 
after  the  apostles,  we  find  infant  baptism 
universally  prevailing  in  the  church.  No 
writer  of  that,  nor  indeed  of  any  subsequent 
age,  was  aware  that  the  lawfulness  of  the 
j)ractice  had  ever  been  disputed,  or  that  any 
change  in  that  respect  had  ever  taken  place. 
All  believed  that  the  usage  had  been  handed 
down  from  the  apostles  themselves.  The 
best  informed  writers  of  that  period  had 
never  heard  of  any  one,  claiming  to  be  a 
christian,  who  denied  the  lawfulness  of  infant 
baptism.  Such  are  the  facts  in  the  case ; 
and  now  let  me  ask,  Is  there  even  a  possi- 
bility that  the  apostles  could  have  preached 
and  taught  in  accordance  with  Baptist  prin- 
ciples ?  Of  all  incredible  things  in  the 
world,  that  is  the  most  incredible. 

Pressed  with  the  weight  of  this  argument, 
our  opponents  reply  that  the  scriptures  are 
the  only  infallible  guide  in  matters  of  reli- 
gion. We  cheerfully  grant  it ;  but  would 
respectfully  ask  them,  In  what  way  are  we 
to  arrive  at  the  true  meaning  of  the  scrip- 
tures ?  If  we  shut  our  eyes  against  all  the 
light  obtained  from  historical  research,  we 
shall  find  many  parts  of  the  sacred  volume 


AN   ILLUSTKATION.  139 

Utterly  unintelligible.  The  history  of  the 
christian  church,  while  it  enables  us  to 
settle  the  authenticity  and  divine  authority 
of  scripture,  at  the  same  time  sheds  abun- 
dant light  on  its  meaning.  Availing  our- 
selves of  this  and  other  helps  to  interpreta- 
tion, we  design,  in  the  next  chapter,  to  prove, 
by  the  sacred  oracles,  that  infants  were  bap- 
tized by  authority  of  the  apostles  themselves. 


140  THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Family  Baptisms — Apostolic  Eule  of  Baptism — Family 
of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia,  of  the  jailer — Model  Mission- 
ary Report — Baptisms  at  Corinth— Family  of  Ste- 
phanas— Oih)S  and  Oikia — Christ  and  the  Sadducees. 

Having  disposed  of  the  assertion  that  in- 
fant baptism  is  an  innovation  of  Rome,  I 
shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  it  was  sanc- 
tioned by  the  practice  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves. This  I  doubt  not  may  be  made  to 
appear : 

1.  From  the  record  of  their  doings  and 
sayings. 

2.  From  the  instructions  given  them  by 
Christ. 

3.  From  their  clear  recognition  of  the  es- 
sential sameness  of  the  church  of  God  under 
all  dispensations. 

FAMILY  BAPTISMS. 

The  doings  of  these  holy  men,  so  far  as  re- 
corded, are  found  chiefly  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  That  inspired  book  furnishes  a 
brief  history  of  the  church  from  A.  D.  33 


FAMILY  BAPTISMS.  141 

to  A.  D.  63.  During  those  thirty  years,  many 
thousands  of  persons  must  have  received 
baptism  ;  but  how  many  of  these  are  named 
or  individually  specified?  There  are  the 
Ethiopian  eunuch,  Simon  Magus,  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  Cornelius,  Lydia,  and  the  jailer  of 
Philippi — six.  Our  Baptist  friends,  how- 
ever, may  think  we  ought  in  fairness  to  add 
the  name  of  Crispus  of  Corinth ;  for  the 
record  says,  "  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the 
synagogue,  believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his 
house,  and  many  of  the  Corinthians,  hearing, 
believed  and  were  baptized." — Acts  xviii.  8. 
It  may  be  implied  in  this  passage  that  Cris- 
pus and  his  believing  family,  as  well  as  the 
"  many  Corinthians,"  submitted  to  the  holy 
ordinance.  We  have  no  objection,  therefore, 
to  add  the  name  of  Crispus  to  our  list. 

Here,  then,  we  have  just  seven  individuals 
named  or  specified  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, as  having  received  baptism.  And  in 
how  many  of  these  seven  cases  are  we  told 
that  the  whole  family  was  baptized,  with  its 
head  ?  In  no  less  than  four  ;  namely,  in 
that  of  Cornelius,  Lydia,  the  jailer,  and 
Crispus.  What  means  this?  Four,  out  of 
the  seven  only  individuals  named  or  speci- 
fied in  the  record  of  baptisms,  have  their 
whole  families  admitted  to  that  ordinance ! 
Did  the  sacred  writer  mean  to  give  us  a  fair 
average  of  these  occurrences  ?  No  christian 
will  deny  it.  The  Spirit  of  inspiration  in- 
tended to  make  a  correct  impression  on  our 


142  THE   SUBJECTS  OF   BAPTISM. 

minds,  by  a  wise  selection  of  facts.  Four 
out  of  seven,  then,  may  be  taken  as  about 
the  proportion  of  cases  in  which  baptisms 
of  whole  families  took  place.  Now  how 
many  individuals  are  named  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  as  converts  to  Christianity  ?  I 
have  lying  before  me  a  list  of  just  forty-eight 
persons.  Supposing  all  these  to  have  been 
baptized,  the  proportion  of  four  in  every 
seven  will  give  twenty-seven  baptisms  of  en- 
tire families,  with  their  heads.  And  if  the 
apostles  baptized  as  many  as  twelve  thou- 
sand adults  in  the  whole  thirty  years,  the 
same  proportion  will  give  near  seven  thou- 
sand family  baptisms. 

Does  this  resemble  the  doings  of  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  ?  Have  their  missionaries  to 
the  heathen,  or  to  our  frontier  settlements, 
ever  exhibited  anything  like  a  counterpart 
to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ?  During  the 
825  years  that  the  Baptist  church  has  ex- 
isted on  earth,  have  they  ever  produced  a 
report  of  seven  converts  whose  baptism  is 
circumstantially  related,  and  four  of  the 
seven  baptized  with  their  whole  families  ? 
Never.  IIow  often  do  they  baptize  a  whole 
household  along  with  its  head  ?  In  one  case 
in  a  hundred  ?  in  a  thousand  ?  in  ten  thou- 
sand ? 

We  grant  that  there  have  been  a  few  in- 
stances during  the  last  fifty  years,  in  which 
they  have  baptized  a  whole  fomily  at  one 
time.   And  such  events,  when  they  do  occur, 


THE  APOSTOLIC   RULE   OP   BAPTISM.   143 

are  apt  to  be  trumpeted  throughout  Chris- 
tendom as  signal  triumphs.  Yet  in  these 
cases  it  generally  turns  out  on  inquiry  that 
the  family  consisted  of  two  or  three  aged 
persons.  Not  so  in  the  apostle's  days  :  large 
households  were  baptized.  The  phrases, 
"  all  his  house,"  "  all  thine  house,"  and  "  he 
and  all  his,"  intimate  that  the  families  to 
which  they  are  applied  were  of  considerable 
size.  Rarely  do  men  use  such  language 
with  reference  to  only  one  or  two  children, 
without  some  qualifying  word,  as  "  all  his 
little  family." 

THE   APOSTOLIC  RULE  OF   BAPTISM. 

Take  another  view  of  this  subject.  We 
remarked  that  four,  out  of  the  seven  baptisms 
above  specified,  were  baptisms  of  whole 
families.  But  we  must  not  overlook  the 
fact  that  two  of  the  seven,  Saul  and  the 
Ethiopian  eunuch,  were  without  families  ; 
and  as  to  a  third,  Simon  Magus,  we  are  not 
told  that  he  had  any.  This  much  is  certain, 
that  every  one  of  the  seven  who  is  described 
as  having  a  family,  has  that  whole  family 
baptized.  This  is  another  striking  and 
significant  fact,  leading  to  this  general  con- 
clusion :  That,  so  far  as  the  record  goes, 
ivhenever  the  apostles  administered  baptism  to 
the  head  of  a  family^  they  admitted  his  whole 
family  to  that  ordinance.  Does  this  look 
like  a  Baptist  church  ?     Can  we  imagine  a 


144  THE   SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 

more  perfect  contrast  to  the  uniform  practice 
of  all  Baptist  ministers  ? 

We  can  now  readily  account  for  the 
universal  prevalence  of  infant  baptism  in 
the  primitive  ages.  Origen  was  not  mis- 
taken in  saying,  that  the  church  had  re- 
ceived a  tradition  from  the  apostles  to 
baptize  infants.  The  uniform  practice  of 
these  inspired  men,  together  with  their  verbal 
instructions,  authorized  the  christians  of 
those  ages  to  administer  the  ordinance  to 
little  children.  Hence  there  was  no  oppo- 
sition from  any  quarter  to  a  usage  which  was 
well  understood  to  be  derived  from  the 
apostles. 

UNNATURAL  ASSUMPTION  OF  THE  BAPTISTS. 

Pressed  with  the  difficulties  of  their 
scheme,  our  opponents  resort  to  the  bold 
assumption  that  the  four  baptized  families 
consisted  exclusively  of  adult  believers  ;  as 
though  it  were  credil3le  that  in  four  ordinary, 
good-sized  households  there  should  not  be  a 
single  child,  too  young  to  be  baptized  on 
his  own  profession  of  faith  1  Now  I  have 
never  heard  of  the  Baptist  brethren  ever 
admitting  to  baptism,  children  under  the 
age  of  nine  or  ten  years;  and  admissions 
even  at  that  tender  age,  are  regarded  by 
them  as  extraordinary,  and  of  very  ques- 
tionable propriety.  And  will  they  assume 
that  there  are  none  below  that  age   in  four 


THE   FAMILY   OF   THE  JAILER.         145 

ordinary  families  respectable  for  numbers  ? 
Let  any  one  tal^e  an  account  of  eight,  twelve, 
or  sixteen  of  the  nearest  families  in  his 
neighbourhood,  omitting  those  which  have 
fewer  than  four  or  five  members  besides 
the  head,  and  he  will  find  that  in  every 
four  such  families,  there  will  be,  on  an 
average,  six  or  seven  children,  quite  too 
young  to  be  received  into  the  church  on 
profession. 

Of  the  four  baptized  families  above  spe- 
cified, that  of  Crispus  is  described  as  con- 
sisting wholly  of  believers.  In  that  respect 
it  stands  alone  among  all  the  households 
baptized  by  the  apostles.  Our  Baptist 
friends  indeed  claim  for 

THE  FAMILY  OF  THE  JAILER, 

that  they  too  were  all  believing  adults,  be- 
cause we  read  that  "he  believed  in  Grod  with 
all  his  house ;"  Acts  xvi.  84.  And  it  is 
true  that  our  English  version  seems  to  con- 
vey that  idea,  though  that  could  not  have 
been  intended  by  the  translators,  for  it  is 
not  in  the  original.  They  doubtless  meant 
the  words  believing  in  Gocl^  to  be  understood 
as  though  included  in  a  parenthesis,  thus, 
"  and  rejoiced  (believing  in  God)  with  all 
his  house."*     A  literal  translation  from  the 

*The  words  of  the    original  are,  nyaWiaaaTo  vavoiKi 
TTZTncrrevKoyg    roJ  Qew    {egalUasato   pauoiki    pepisteukos    to 
Theo). 
13 


146  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

Greek  would  be,  "  and  rejoiced  with  all  his 
house,  he  having  believed  iu  God ;"  or 
*'  having  believed  in  God,  he  rejoiced  with 
all  his  house."  This,  so  far  as  I  know,  is 
not  disputed  by  any  respectable  Baptist 
writer.  Our  opponents,  however,  allege 
that,  since  the  jailer's  family  rejoiced  with 
him,  the}?"  must  all  have  been  adults.  But 
if  so,  then  the  little  children  who  rejoiced 
in  tlie  temple,  crying,  llosanna  to  the  Son 
of  David,  must  have  been  adults  too,  though 
described  by  our  Lord  as  "  babes  and  suck- 
lings !"  We  learn  from  2  Chronicles  xxxi. 
14 — 16,  that  children  of  "three  years  old 
and  upwards,"  entered  into  the  house  of  the 
Lord,  and  ate  of  the  free  will  offerings  with 
their  parents.  And  in  Deut.  xvi.  26,  is  this 
injunction  upon  the  parents  :  "  And  thou 
shalt  eat  there  before  the  Lord  thy  God  ;  and 
thou  shalt  rejoice^  thou  and  thine  household." 
So  also  in  Cliapter  xii.  7,  parents  and  house- 
holds are  commanded  to  eat  before  the  Lord 
and  rejoice  together.  Here  children  of  "  three 
years  old"  are  represented  as  "  rejoicing  be- 
fore the  Lord,"  with  their  parents  ;  which 
is  rather  more  than  is  affirmed  of  the  jailer's 
family. 

Equally  futile  is  the  argument  that  the 
jailer's  family  consisted  of  adults,  because 
the  apostles  spake  the  word  "  to  all  that  were 
ill  his  house."  For  that  is  the  very  language 
usually  adopted  when  any  one  addresses  a 
congregation.     We   say,  "  lie  exhorted  the 


THE  FAMILY  OF  CORNELIUS.    147 

whole  assembly ;"  "  He  spoke  to  all  in  the 
house."  No  rational  man  infers  from  such 
expressions  that  there  are  no  little  children 
present  in  the  congregation.  In  Josh.  viii.  35, 
we  learn  that  "there  was  not  a  word  of  all 
that  Moses  commanded,  which  Joshua  read 
not  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  with 
the  women  and  the  little  onesP  Among 
these  little  ones  there  must  have  been  thou- 
sands who  understood  not  a  word  of  what 
was  read. 

THE   FAMILY   OF   CORNELIUS. 

That  a  part  of  the  assembly  convened  at 
the  house  of  Cornelius  were  adults,  we»readily 
admit.  But  our  opponents  contend  that  all 
his  family  were  of  that  class,  because  we 
read  that  he  was  "  one  that  feared  God  with 
all  his  house."  — Acts  x.  2.  But  that  is  no 
more  than  may  be  affirmed  of  any  household 
distinguished  for  piety,  though  it  may  con- 
tain children.  It  is  usual  in  such  cases  to 
say,  "It  is  a  God-fearing  family;"  or,  "They 
are  a  very  religious  family."  Nor,  indeed, 
can  it  be  denied  that  children  of  two  or 
three  years  old,  under  proper  training,  do 
commonly  become  impressed  with  a  salutary 
fear  of  God.  When  Joshua  says,  "  As  for 
me  and  my  house,  we  will  serve  the  Lord," 
we  do  not  conclude  that  his  family  was  com- 
posed exclusively  of  adults,  because  no 
others  are  capable  of  serving  the  Lord. 


148  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

ISTor  can  it  avail  our  opponents  that  "the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  that  heard  the 
word,"  in  the  house  of  Cornelius.  For  the 
same  thing  may  be  true  of  any  assembly, 
where  there  is  a  remarkable  out  pouring  of 
the  Spirit.  In  such  cases,  how  often  is  it 
said,  "The  Spirit  descended  upon  the  whole 
assembly" — "The  whole  audience  was  deeply 
moved!"  Those  who  use  this  lanofua<2fe 
never  mean  to  be  understood  as  denying 
that  little  children  were  present.  Childreu 
of  three  or  four  years  old  may,  to  some  ex- 
tent, share  the  emotions  of  a  worshipping 
assembly,  though  too  young  to  make  a  pub- 
lic profession  of  religion.  That  Cornelius 
had  cajled  together  "  his  kinsmen  and  near 
friends,"  and  that  these  were  a  part  of  the 
assembly  on  whom  the  Spirit  descended,  is 
plain  enough.  It  is  equally  plain  that  he 
had  a  flimily  of  his  own,  as  I  shall  show  in 
another  place. 

THE   FAMILY   OF   LYDIA. 

It  is  next  argued,  that  the  family  of  Lydia 
were  all  adult  believers,  because  the  apos- 
tles, when  released  from  prison,  "entered 
into  her  house,  and  when  they  had  seen  the 
brethren,  they  comforted  them  and  departed." 
"Wonderful  logic !  The  apostles  saw  brethrea 
at  the  house  of  Lydia;  therefore  all  Lydia's 
family  were  believing  adults!!  Is  it  possible 
that  Paul,  and  Silas,  and  Luke,  and  Timothy, 


THE  FAMILY   OF   LYDIA.  149 

were  "  many  days"  in  Pbilippi,  and  that 
iivdia's  family,  besides  the  jailer,  were  the 
only  converts  made  during  their  stay  ? 
What  are  we  to  think  of  a  system  that  re- 
quires so  absurd  a  supposition  to  support  it  ? 
Look  at  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 
There  it  will  be  seen  that  that  church  was, 
from  the  first,  a  flourishing  one.  Paul  and 
Silas  were  about  to  leave  the  city  ;  and  no- 
thing was  more  natural  than  to  hold  a  fare- 
well-meeting at  the  residence  of  the  hospi- 
table Lydia,  where  Luke  and  Timothy  had 
still  remained.  Here  the  two  former  de- 
livered their  parting  exhortations,  in  which 
they  sought  to  comfort  and  strengthen  the 
new  converts,  and  to  commend  them  to  God 
and  the  word  of  his  grace. 

Luke,  with  his  accustomed  accuracy,  de- 
signates Lydia  as  the  only  believer  in  the 
family.  "  Whose  heart,"  says  he,  "  the  Lord 
opened,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things 
which  were  spoken  of  Paul."  Not  one  word 
does  he  say  about  her  family,  till  he  tells 
us  that  "  she  was  baptized  and  her  household^ 
The  same  caution  is  apparent  in  his  account 
of  her  kind  invitation  to  the  apostles.  She 
desired  those  holy  men,  to  whom,  under  God, 
she  owed  her  conversion,  to  share  her  hos- 
pitality, and  would  naturally  urge  every 
proper  consideration  adapted  to  persuade 
them.  If  she  could  have  said,  "We  are  all 
believers,  therefore  come  in  and  abide  with 
us,"  that  is  the  very  plea  she  would  have 
13* 


150  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

urged.  Instead  of  this,  she  says,  "If  ye 
have  judged  me  to  be  faithful,  come  into  my 
house  and  abide  there." 

A   MODEL   MISSIONARY   REPORT. 

Luke's  account  of  the  first  planting  of  the 
christian  church  may  be  regarded  as  aa 
inspired  missionary  report.  In  that  report 
he  mentions  the  baptism  of  four  whole  fami- 
lies. Of  one  of  these  families  he  relates,  as  an 
interesting  fact,  that  they  were  all  believers. 
Of  the  other  three  he  does  not  say  this  ;  nor 
does  he  tell  us  anything  from  which  we  can 
fairly  draw  such  an  inference.  But  he  does 
tell  us  that  they  were  all  baptized.  How 
far  do  reports  of  Baptist  missionaries  agree 
with,  that  of  the  inspired  Luke  ?  If,  at  any 
time,  they  have  the  extraordinary  good  for- 
tune to  baptize  a  whole  family  at  once,  do 
they  ever  fail  to  mention  expressly  that  they 
were  all  believers?  We  need  not  a  more 
convincing  proof  that  the  apostles  were  not 
Baptist  missionaries. 

OTHER   INDIVIDUAL   BAPTISMS. 

Thus  far,  in  this  chapter,  we  have  confined 
our  investigation  to  a  single  book  of  the 
Bible.  But  if  we  extend  the  inquiry  to  the 
whole  New  Testament,  all  the  additional  in- 
formation, having  a  bearing  on  the  case,  is 
found  in  the  following  passage. 


OTHER  INDIVIDUAL   BAPTISMS.        151 

1  Cor.  i.  14-17.—"  I  thank  God  that  I  bap- 
tized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gaius  ; 
lest  any  should  say  that  I  baptized  in  mine 
own  name.  And  I  baptized  also  the  house- 
hold of  Stephanas ;  besides,  I  know  not 
whether  I  baptized  any  other.  For  Christ 
sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
gospel." 

Crispus  we  have  already  taken  into  the 
account,  as  being  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  As  to  Gaius,  it  is  not  in  evi- 
dence that  he  had  any  family  proper.  Ste- 
phanas was  "  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,"  and 
of  course  a  believer.  There  is  no  record  of 
his  baptism,  but  here  is  a  special  one  of  the 
baptism  of  his  family.  We  must,  therefore, 
add  to  our  former  list  just  one  individual, 
and  one  family  ;  making,  in  all  the  New  Tes- 
tament, eight  individual  and  five  family  bap- 
tisms, recorded  as  taking  place  after  Christ 
instituted  the  ordinance,  and  gave  commis- 
sion to  his  disciples.  Two  of  the  eight  were 
certainly  without  families,  and  of  two  others 
it  does  not  appear  that  they  had  any.  On 
the  whole,  then,  the  rule  still  holds  good  that 
the  apostles,  so  far  as  the  record  goes,  never 
baptized  the  head  of  a  family  without  ad- 
mitting his  whole  family  to  the  ordinance. 

Do  the  Baptists  ask  us  to  prove  that  in 
all  the  five  families  there  was  one  little  child? 
As  well  might  they  ask  us  to  prove  that 
when  the  Israelites  were  "  all  baptized  "  in 
the  sea,  there  were  little  children  among  them. 


152  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM!. 

I  would  want  proof  in  the  one  case  about  as 
soon  as  in  the  other.  What!  Will  these  good 
brethren  have  it  that  the  apostles  gathered 
in  none  but  bachelors  and  childless  house- 
holders ?  Look  at  the  case  again.  Five 
whole  families  of  respectable  size,  for  every 
eight  adults  named  as  baptized  by  the  apos- 
tles, and  not  a  little  child  among  them  ! 
Eeally,  this  is  too  much  for  credulity  itself. 
The  chances  are  a  thousand  to  one  against 
it.  From  the  last  census  of  the  United- 
States  it  appears  that  two  in  every  seven  of 
the  white  population  are  under  ten  years  of 
age.  At  this  rate,  and  taking  the  five  fami- 
lies at  six  persons  each,  includingthe  parents, 
they  would  contain  at  least  eight  children 
■under  the  age  of  ten.  At  the  same  time  we 
should  remember  that  in  Eastern  countries, 
and  in  ancient  times,  chikiless  families  were 
rare,  children  were  numerous  and  bore  a 
very  large  proportion  to  the  adult  popula- 
tion. 

OTHEK    FAMILY   BAPTISMS   AT   CORINTH. 

But  were  there  only  one  or  two  families 
baptized  at  Corinth  ?  We  think  there  were 
more,  and  that  this  is  fairly  implied  in  the 
language  of  Paul :  "  And  I  baptized  also  the 
liousehold  of  Stephanas;  besides,  I  know  not 
whether  I  baptized  any  other."  Here  the 
original  word  AoiTdr  {loipov),  translated  besides^ 
is  more  expressively  rendered  in  the  French 


OTHER  FAMILY  BAPTISMS   AT  CORINTH.   153 

version,  as  to  the  rest  (du  reste),  there  being 
a  reference  to  the  baptized  family  mentioned 
in  the  previous  clause.  In  this  view  the 
passage  may  be  translated  thus  :  "  I  baptized 
also  the  family  of  Stephanas :  as  to  the  rest 
{of  the  baptized  families)  I  do  not  know 
whether  I  baptized  any  other." 

We  learn  from  the  context  that  the  Corin- 
thians were  divided  into  parties,  each  of 
which  adhered  to  a  particular  teacher  in  op- 
position to  all  others.  Things  having  turned 
out  so  unhappily,  the  apostle  was  glad  that 
he  had  baptized  so  few  of  them  himself,  as 
there  was  less  pretext  for  making  him  the 
head  of  a  party.  "  I  thank  God  that  I  bap- 
tized none  of  you,"  says  he,  addressing  the 
adult  believers,  "I  baptized  none  of  youhxxt 
Crispus  and  Gaius."  Of  this  he  was" certain, 
and  they  could  not  dispute  it.  Many  others 
of  them  indeed  had  been  baptized,  but  not 
by  him.  It  was  true  that  he  had  also  bap- 
tized the  family  of  his  friend  Stephanas, 
but  that  did  not  conflict  with  his  previous 
statement,  for  they  were  too  young  to  be 
concerned  in  the  party  strife,  and  were,  there- 
fore, out  of  the  question.  For  the  same 
reason  it  was  unimportant  for  him  to  recol- 
lect whether  there  was  any  other  baptized 
family  among  them  to  whom  he  had  admin- 
istered the  ordinance.  Many  Corinthian 
families  had  received  baptism,  but  he  was 
not  certain  that  he  had  baptized  more  than 
one.     Christ,  indeed,  had  not  sent  him  to 


154  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

baptize,  but  to  perform  tbe  more  important 
and  difficult  service  of  preaching  the  gospel. 

FAMILIES   AXD    THEIR   HEADS   NOT   ALWAYS 
BAPTIZED   AT   THE   SAME   TIME. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  meet  an  objection 
often  urged  by  the  Baptists  with  an  air  of 
triumph.  Why  is  it,  say  they,  that  in  the 
accounts  of  great  numbers  baptized  at  Jeru- 
salem on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  at  Samaria, 
at  Corinth,  and  other  places,  we  hear  nothing 
of  the  baptism  of  any  but  believing  adults? 
I  answer,  First^  Pedobaptist  ministers,  when- 
ever it  falls  to  their  lot  to  baptize  many 
adults  on  one  occasion,  defer  the  baptism  of 
their  families  to  another  more  suitable  occa- 
sion. Just  so  the  apostles  seem  to  have 
done.  They  baptized  the  believing  Corin- 
thians at  one  time,  and  their  families  at 
another.  Crispus,  for  instance,  was  baptized 
by  Paul,  and  his  household  by  another  hand. 
So  the  baptism  of  Stephanas,  and  that  of 
his  family,  must  have  taken  place  on  sepa- 
rate occasions.  And  such  cases  were  proba- 
bly of  very  frequent  occurrence.  Secondh/^ 
had  it  not  been  for  the  party  strife  existing 
at  Corinth,  we  should  never  have  heard  of 
any  baptisms  there  but  those  of  believers. 
The  disputes  in  that  church  called  forth  the 
censures  of  the  apostle  in  an  Epistle.  In 
that  Epistle  he  incidentally  mentions  one 
family  baptism,  and  gives  an  intimation  of 


HOUSE   AND   HOUSEHOLD.  155 

many  more.  If  circumstances  had  elicited 
any  details  of  the  baptisms  at  Jerusalem, 
after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  we  should,  no 
doubt,  have  learned  that  family  baptisms  fol- 
lowed those  of  believing  adults,  as  at  Corinth, 
and  in  as  great  numbers.  And  if  the  pro- 
portion of  these  baptisms,  to  those  of  indi- 
viduals, was  as  great,  as  would  appear  from 
the  few  cases  specially  recorded,  we  may  pre- 
sume that  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  hundred 
family  baptisms  ensued  upon  the  addition  to 
the  church  of  the  three  thousand  Pentecostal 
converts.  The  same  remarks  will  apply  to 
Samaria  and  other  cities. 

HOUSE  AND   HOUSEHOLD. 

But  not  only  have  the  doings  of  the  apos- 
tles given  testimony  to  the  fact  that  they 
baptized  little  children,  but  their  words  ^yoyq 
that  they  meant  to  tell  us  so.  And  the  fault 
is  not  theirs  if  no  evidence  of  it  appears  in 
our  English  version.  Every  linguist  knows, 
that  in  most  languages  there  are  words  ex- 
pressing distinctions,  for  which  there  may 
not  be  words  exactly  corresponding  in  other 
languages.  Precisely  such  is  the  case  with 
the  two  Greek  words,  oixo^  (oikos)  and  oiKta 
{oikia).  Our  translators  have  rendered  these 
words,  indiscriminately,  household SLud  house ; 
though  they  differ  from  each  other  as  a  part 
from  the  whole.  The  one  is  a  masculine,  and 
the  other  a  feminine  noun.     When  used  in 


156  THE    SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 

a  literal  sense,  oihos  means  a  Jiouse,  the  dwell- 
ing of  a  family  ;  and  oikia  signifies  tJte  whole 
premises^  including  out-houses.  When  they 
are  used  figuratively,  to  signify  persons,  oikos 
means  a  man's  proper  famili/,  excluding  ser- 
vants and  attendants  ;  and  oihia  denotes  a 
whole  household,  includinsf  servants  and  at- 
tendants.  For  this  distinction  we  have  the 
authority  of  Aristotle,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  C. 
Taylor.     Aj^ost.  JBapt.,  pp.  41. 

OIKOS  {oikos),  HOUSE. 

o7v9j  {oikos\  when  it  signifies  2^6rsons,  most 
"Usually  means  the  children  o^  a  family.  Here 
are  a  few  examples,  taken  from  the  Septua- 
gint: 

Gen.  xxxiv.  30. — "  I  shall  be  destroyed,  I 
and  my  house"  {oikos).  There  were  infants 
in  Jacob's  family  at  the  time. 

Num.  xviii.  31. — "  Ye  shall  eat  it  in  every 
place,  ye  and  your  households  {oikos\  for  it 
is  your  reward  for  your  services."  Their 
children  ate  of  the  offerings  at  three  years 
old.— See  2  Chron.  xxi.  15^  16. 

Deut.  XXV.  9. — "  So  shall  it  be  done  unto 
that  man  that  will  not  build  up  his  brother's 
house"  {oikos). 

1  Sam.  ii.  33. — "  And  all  the  increase  of 
thine  house  (o?'te)  shall  die  in  the  flower  of 
their  age."  Here,  again,  infant  children  are 
meant. 

The  New  Testament  writers,  also,  used  the 


0IK02  (OTKOS),    HOUSE.  157 

word  to  signify  children  of  all  ages,  thus : 
Heb.  xi.  7. — "  Noah  prepared  an  ark  to 
the  saving  of  his  house"  (oikos).  Here  ser- 
vants are  excluded. 

1  Tim.  iii.  4. — "One  that  ruleth  well  his 
own   house  {oihos\   having  his    children    in* 
subjection."     Verse  12 — "  Ruling  their  chil- 
dren and  their  own  houses  {oikos)  well." 

Such  is  the  word  used  by  the  sacred  writers 
in  connection  with  five  family  baptisms. 
"Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue, 
believed  on  the  Lord,  with  all  his  house" 
{oiJcos).  A  truly  remarkable  instance  of  a 
father  and  all  his  children  receiving  baptism, 
as  believers.  Cornelius  had  children.  Said 
the  angel  to  him,  *'  Send  men  to  Joppa,  and 
call  for  Simon,  whose  surname  is  Peter ;  who 
shall  tell  thee  words  by  which  thou  and  all 
thy  house  (oikos)  shall  be  saved." — Acts  xi. 
13,  14.  To  the  trembling  jailer,  Paul  said, 
"Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved,  and  thine  house"  (oikos),  and 
"  he  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straight- 
way." Says  the  same  apostle,  "  I  baptized 
also  the  household  (oikos)  of  Stephanas," 
meaning  the  children  of  Stephanas.  Of 
Lydia,  we  read,  that  "  she  was  baptized,  and 
her  household"  (oikos).  In  all  these  cases, 
the  word  used  by  the  apostles  is  one  which 
every  Grecian  would  take  to  mean  children. 
That  the  people  of  those  ages  did  so  under- 
stand the  word,  we  have  the  most  ample  evi- 
dence. The  first  translation  of  the  New 
14 


158  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

Testament  ever  made,  was  the  Peshito  Sjriac, 
published  only  a  few  years  after  the  apos- 
tolic age.  That  version,  instead  of  saying, 
"  Lydia  was  baptized,  and  her  household," 
says,  ''  She  was  baptized,  and  the  children  of 
her  house.''^ 

oiKiA  (oikia),  HOUSEHOLD. 

This  word,  as  we  said,  when  used  meta- 
phorically to  signify  ^er50725,  means  a  house- 
hold^ including  servants  and  attendants. 
We  give  an  example  or  two. 

Philip,  iv.  22. — "All  the  saints  salute  you, 
chiefly  they  that  are  of  Caesar's  household," 
oiKta  (pikia.)  It  is  certain  that  not  one  of 
Nero's  family,  at  that  time,  professed  Chris- 
tianity, though  some  of  his  domestics  did. 

John  viii.  35.  "  And  the  servant  abideth 
not  in  the  house  {pikia)  for  ever." 

Mark  xiii.  34.  "  Who  left  his  house 
{pikia)  and  gave  authority  to  his  servants." 

Observe,  now,  what  light  this  distinction 
between  the  two  words  throws  upon  certain 
texts.  In  Acts  xvi.  32,  we  read  that  the 
apostles  spake  the  word  to  the  jailer,  "and 
to  all  that  were  in  his  house,"  {oikia\  that  is, 
to  all  within  his  premises,  including  the  in- 
mates of  the  prison.  Afterwards  the  jailer 
*'  brought  them  into  his  house,"  oIko^  {oikos\ 
liis  family  apartments.  Again  :  in  1  Cor. 
3ivi.  15,  we  are  told  that  "the  house  [oikia) 
of  Stephanas"  had  "  addicted  themselves  to 


A   COMMON   OBJECTION  ANSWERED.   159 

the  ministry  of  the  saints."  Here  notice,  that 
this  "  house"  of  Stephanas  differs  from  that 
"  household"  of  his,  which  Paul  baptized. 
It  was  the  oikia^  the  attendants,  or  the  ser- 
vants of  Stephanas,  who  devoted  themselves 
to  the  service  of  the  saints ;  but  it  was  his 
oikos^  children^  who  were  baptized  by  Paul. 

A   COMMON   OBJECTION   ANSWERED. 

To  all  this  the  Baptist  friends  will  say, 
"  This  is  nothing  but  circumstantial  evi- 
dence. Give  us  a  direct  warrant — a  declara- 
tion of  the  apostles  in  so  many  words,  that 
they  hajytized  infants^  and  we  will  believe." 

Are  these  brethren  not  aware  that  circum- 
stantial or  inferential  proof  is  often  more 
conclusive  and  less  liable  to  objection  than 
any  other?  It  is  the  very  kind  of  proof 
which  on  a  memorable  occasion  our  Saviour 
adduced  to  the  Sadducees.  They  received  the 
five  books  of  Moses,  but  rejected  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection.  They  very  likely  de- 
manded a  direct  warrant,  a  Thus  saith  the 
Lord^  The  dead  shall  arise.  And  yet  if  Moses 
had  stated  the  doctrine  in  the  most  express 
terms,  it  would  have  made  no  difference. 
Paul  has  since  declared  in  so  many  words 
that  the  dead  shall  rise,  and  yet  there  are 
professed  christians  who  deny  or  explain  it 
away.  To  those  ancient  skeptics,  Christ 
offered  a  species  of  evidence  more  difficult 
to  evade  than  any  direct  warrant  whatever. 


160  THE  SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

The  Lord  addressing  Moses,  said,  "I  am  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob."  "  He  is  not,"  said  Christ, 
"the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living." 
Matt.  xxii.  32.  This  inferential  proof,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Great  Teacher,  was  conclu- 
sive. 

When,  therefore,  our  Baptist  brethren  de- 
mand a  direct  warrant — an  inspired  decla- 
ration in  so  many  words,  that  the  apostles 
baptized  infants — we  may  properly  reply, 
that  if  the  sacred  writers  had  used  that  very 
language,  there  would  have  been  quite  as 
much  room  for  cavilling  as  ever.  Even  as 
it  is,  when  we  press  these  brethren  with  the 
language  and  conduct  of  Christ  to  little 
children^  they  exclaim,  "  Oh,  yes,  metaphori- 
cal children  !"  When  we  urge  upon  them  the 
testimonies  of  IrenoBus,  Origen,  and  others, 
in  regard  to  the  baptism  of  little  children  and 
infants  in  their  day,  they  reply,  "  that  these 
terms  are  used  indiscriminately  for  minors, 
whether  they  be  twenty  days,  or  twenty 
years  old ;"  that  "  it  happens  that  we  hear 
of  an  infant  who  was  hanged  for  killing  his 
tutor;  and  of  the  last  will  and  testament  of 
the  little  infant  {infantulns)  Adald,  aged 
eighteen."  The  inspired  writers,  foreseeing 
that  all  such  language  would  be  liable  to  cavil, 
chose  a  different  method  of  conveying  the 
truth,  and  one  less  susceptible  of  misconstruc- 
tion than  that  demanded  by  our  brethren. 
For  eight  individual  baptisms,  the  only  ones 


A   COMMON   OBJECTION  ANSWERED.   161 

specified  by  the  sacred  writers,  they  relate 
no  fewer  than  five  baptisms  of  whole  fami- 
lies. JSTor  do  they  ever  tell  ns  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  believing  head  of  a  family,  with- 
out expressly  informing  us  that  his  whole 
family  was  baptized.  Still  further,  to  desig- 
nate those  families,  they  employ  a  word, 
which  in  their  day  would  naturally  be  un- 
derstood to  mean  children^  and  which  was 
actually  so  understood  in  the  following  age. 
In  this  manner  the  inspired  writers  have 
conveyed  to  us  the  belief  and  practice  of  the 
apostles,  in  terms  less  liable  to  perversion 
than  if  they  had  said  in  so  many  words,  The 
a2:>ostles  baptized  infants. 
14* 


162  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   III. 

Christ's  instructions  to  his  disciples — Infants  brong'ht 
to  Christ — "  Of  such,  toiouton,  the  kinfi^dom  of  hea- 
ven " — The  command  to  baptize — Matheteuo — Pe- 
ter's understanding  of  the  commission — "  The  pro- 
mise " 

In  the  last  chapter,  we  endeavoured  to 
show  from  the  record  of  the  apostles'  doings 
that  they  baptized  other  than  believing 
adults.  I  shall  now  attempt  to  prove  that 
they  were  authorized  so  to  do  by  the  in- 
structions of  the  Saviour.  And  here,  at 
the  outset,  it  is  necessary  to  dispose  of  two 
or  three 


GROUNDLESS  ASSUMPTIONS  OF  THE  BAPTISTS. 

In  the  first  place,  they  assume  that  the 
command  of  the  risen  Saviour,  "Go  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  tliem,"  &;c.,  was  the 
only  commission  to  baptize  which  the  apos- 
tles ever  received.  Whereas,  it  is  notorious 
that,  some  time  previous,  they  "  made  and 
baptized  more  disciples  than  John,"  which 
they  would  hardly  have  done  without  suffi- 


Christ's  instructions.  163 

cient  authority.  In  the  second  place,  they 
assume  that  the  apostles  were  bound  to  take 
the  aforesaid  command  as  the  exclusive  rule 
of  baptism,  and  to  construe  it  independently 
of  any  previous  instructions  of  the  Saviour. 
But  why  then  did  Christ  promise,  that,  after 
his  departure,  the  Holy  Ghost  should  bring 
all  things  to  their  remembrance,  whatsoever 
he  had  said  unto  them  ?  John  xiv.  26. 
This  aid  of  the  Divine  Spirit  would  be  alto- 
gether useless,  if  they  were  bound  to  ignore 
all  previous  instructions  on  the  subject.  In 
the  third  place^  our  opponents  take  for 
granted  that  the  command  referred  to,  is  a 
command  to  baptize  none  but  believing 
adults  ;  and  as  though  this  were  a  conceded 
point,  they  proceed  solemnly  to  rebuke 
Pedobaptists  for  the  sin  of  adding  to  the 
commission  of  the  Saviour.  Thus  they  beg 
the  question  at  the  outset,  and  by  this  means 
save  themselves  the  trouble  of  proving  their 
position  by  sound  argument. 

Christ's  instructions  to  his  disciples. 

These,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  baptism,  are 
comprised  in  the  following  scriptures : 

Matt.  xix.  13 — 15. — "  Then  were  brought 
unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  put 
his  hands  on  them  and  pray  ;  and  his  disci- 
ples rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said.  Suffer 
little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come 
unto  me ;   for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 


164  THE   SUBJECTS  OF   BAPTISM. 

heaven.  And  he  Laid  his  hands  on  them, 
and  departed  thence."  See  also  Mark  x.  13 
— 16  ;  and  Luke  xviii.  15 — 17. 

Matt.  xvi.  19 — "And  I  will  give  unto 
thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  hea- 
ven."    See  also  John  xx.  23. 

Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20 — "  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe 
all   things   whatsoever    I  have  commanded 

you." 

Mark  xvi.  15,  16 — "Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture. He  that  belie veth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned." 

The  first  of  these  passages  contains  a  most 
interesting  account  of 

LITTLE  CHILDREN"  BROUGHT  TO  CHRIST. 

They  must  have  been  quite  small  children, 
too ;  for  Luke  calls  them  infants  ;  and  Mark 
tells  us  tliat  the  affectionate  Saviour  "took 
them  up  in  his  arms."  The  parents,  also, 
must  have  been  believers  in  Christ,  or  they 
would  not  have  sought  his  blessing. 

"  And  his  disciples  rehuhed  themr  That 
is,  as  Mark  explains  it,  they  "  rebuked  those 


TOIOYTilN  (tOIOUTON),  of  SUCH. 

that  brought  them."  Yery  probably  the 
disciples  used  some  such  language  as  this : 
— "  Away  with  your  little  infants !  Don't 
think  to  bring  them  to  Christ  now :  wait 
till  they  are  old  enough  to  come  themselves. 
"What  possible  good  can  it  do  to  lay  hands 
on  an  unconscious  babe?"  With  this  ill- 
judged  conduct  of  his  disciples,  Jesus,  as 
Mark  tells  us,  was  "  much  displeased."  By 
his  words  and  actions  he  taught  them  a  les- 
son they  were  not  likely  to  forget.  "  S after 
the  little  children,"  said  he,  "  and  forbid  them 
not  to  come  unto  me."  Then  suiting  his 
actions  to  his  words,  he  laid  his  hands  on 
them  and  blessed  them  ;  thus  spurning  away 
the  narrow,  unworthy  suggestion,  that  in- 
fants could  receive  no  good  from  him. 

"  But  why,"  it  is  asked,  "  is  it  not  said 
that  Christ  baptized  them  ?"  A  more  sim- 
ple question  could  hardly  be  put  by  the 
little  children  themselves  I  Yet,  as  we  must 
be  "  patient  toward  all  men,"  we  answer  : 
first^  that  Jesus  himself  never  baptized  with 
water,  and  secondly,  that  he  had  not  yet  in- 
stituted the  christian  baptism.  These  children 
had  been  dedicated  to  God  by  circumcision, 
which  was  still  in  force. 

TOIOYTilN  {toiouton\  OF  SUCH. 

"  Of  such,"  says  Christ,  "  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  And  of  whom  does  he  speak  ? 
Not  of  little  children,  says  Dr.  Carson,  but 


166  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

of  those  who  resemble  them;  and  so  say  all 
the  Baptists.  Indeed,  any  other  interpreta- 
tion would  be  fatal  to  their  scheme.  They 
would  have  Christ's  meaning  to  be,  "  Suffer 
little  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come 
unto  me,  for  of  adults  who  resemble  them  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  But,  adopting 
this  construction,  we  cannot  make  out  the 
force  of  Christ's  argument.  We  cannot  see 
why,  in  that  view,  little  children  should  be 
brought  to  him,  any  more  than  lambs  and 
doves;  for  it  might  be  said  with  equal  pro- 
priety, that  of  adults  who  resemble  lambs 
and  doves,  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

The  fairest  way  to  ascertain  who  are 
meant  by  the  phrase  of  such^  is  to  refer  to 
other  passages  where  the  same  language  is 
used.  The  original  word^  translated  such  is 
ToiovTOi  (toioutos),  and  occurs  in  the  following 
texts  : 

John  iv.  23 — "  The  true  worshippers  shall 
worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
for  the  Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  him." 
That  is,  he  seeketh  those  very  persons  to 
worship  him. 

Acts  xxii.  22 — "  Away  with  such  a  fellow 
from  the  earth  ;  for  it  is  not  fit  that  he  should 
live."  According  to  the  Baptists,  the  Jews 
meant  not  Paul  himself,  but  only  those  that 
resembled  him.  We  say,  this  very  Paul  and 
all  like  him. 

1  Cor.  vii.  2,  8 — "  But,  and  if  thou  marry,' 
thou  hast  not  sinned  ;  and  if  a  virgin  marry, 


"the  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN."  167 

she  hath  not  sinned.  Nevertheless,  such 
shall  have  trouble  in  the  flesh."  On  the 
Baptist  principle,  not  those  who  marrv, 
but  those  only  who  resemble  them  are 
meant ! 

1  Cor.  V.  11 — "  If  any  man  that  is  called 
a  brother  be  a  fornicator" — "  with  such  an 
one,  no,  not  to  eat."  That  is,  not  to  eat  with 
the  very  person  specified. 

2  Cor.  xi.  13 — "  Such  are  false  apostles, 
deceitful  workers,"  &c.  The  identical  per- 
sons previously  described  were  false  apos- 
tles, and  so  were  all  others  who  were  like 
them. 

1  Tim.  vi.  4,  5 — "  He  is  proud,  knowing 
nothing" — "  from  such  withdraw  thyself." 
That  is,  from  the  very  persons  specified,  as 
well  as  all  who  were  like  them. 

If  these  six  examples  are  not  sufilicient, 
I  can  produce  twice  as  many  more.  In 
fact,  the  unvarying  current  of  scripture 
usage  proves,  that  when  Christ  said,  "  Of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  he  meant 
of  them — that  is,  of  little  children  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  In  other  words,  little  chil- 
dren, as  well  as  others,  belong  to  that  king- 
dom. 


In  the  next  place,  what  is  that  kingdom 

to  which  little  children  are  said  to  have  a 

^ight  ?     What  Matthew  calls  "  the  kingdom 

of  heaven,"  is  styled  by   Mark  and  Luke 


168  THE     SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM. 

"  the  kingdom  of  God."  Both  phrases  have 
the  same  meaning.  They  contain  an  allu- 
sion to  the  ancient  predictions  respecting 
the  glorious  reign  of  Messiah.  Thus  Daniel 
says,  "  In  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the 
God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall 
never  be  destroyed." — Chap. ii.  44.  Again: 
speaking  of  "  one  like  unto  the  son  of  man," 
he  says,  "There  was  given  him  dominion, 
glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  na- 
tions, and  languages  should  serve  him." — 
Chap.  iv.  7.  To  the  same  effect  are  numer- 
ous predictions  of  the  other  prophets.  The 
kingdom  they  foretold  can  be  none  other 
than  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  the 
Gospel  church,  which  was  to  be  established 
among  all  nations.  And  this  we  have  no 
doubt  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  in  the  passage  under  dis- 
cussion. In  this  particular,  most  Baptist 
writers  agree  with  us.  Christ  must  then  be 
understood  as  making  known  to  his  disci- 
ples, that  little  children,  or  infants,  were  a 
component  part  of  that  visible  church  of  his, 
which  was  about  to  be  extended  over  all  the 
earth. 

It  was  peculiarly  important  that  the  dis- 
ciples should  have  a  correct  understanding 
on  this  subject,  because  Christ  was  about  to 
intrust  them  with  the  highest  authority  in 
his  church.  He  had  promised  to  give  unto 
them  "the  keys  of  tlie  kingdom  of  heaven  ;" 
that  is  to  say,  of  that  very  kingdom  of  which 


COMMAND   TO   BAPTIZE   ALL   NATIONS.    169 

infants  were  a  component  part ;  and  what- 
soever they  should  bind  on  earth  should  be 
bound  in  heaven.  They  would  be  author- 
ized to  open  the  gospel  dispensation,  and 
to  declare  what  persons  should  be  admitted 
to  the  visible  church  or  excluded  from  it. 
The  instructions  they  now  received  from 
their  Divine  Master,  as  to  the  position  occu- 
pied in  his  kingdom  by  little  children,  would 
afterwards  be  brought  to  their  remembrance, 
and  made  plain  to  them  by  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Guided  by  those  instruc- 
tions, they  would  not  fail  to  recognize  the 
right  of  infants,  by  admitting  them  to 
baptism. 

I  may  here  remark,  that  if  by  "  the  king- 
dom of  heaven"  is  to  be  understood  tlie 
hingdom  of  glory^  our  argument  will  not  be 
weakened  but  rather  strengthened.  For  if 
infants  are  admitted  into  the  redeemed  family 
in  heaven,  who  will  dare  to  exclude  them 
from  the  visible  family  of  Christ  on  earth  ? 
Who  will  pretend  that  the  church  below  is 
more  pure  and  select  in  its  society  than  the 
church  above  ? 

Turn  we  now  to  an  examination  of  our 
Lord's  last  instructions  to  his  disciples,  con- 
tained in 

THE   COMMAND  TO   BAPTIZE  ALL   NATIONS. 

"  Go,"  says  the  ascending  Saviour,  "  Go 
teach    all   nations,   baptizing   them   in   the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
15 


170  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

the  Holy  Ghost."  Again  :  "  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  The  Baptists  say  that 
the  apostles  were  bound  to  put  a  rigid  in- 
terpretation on  this  last  command  of  Christ, 
paying  no  regard  to  any  previous  instruc- 
tions; and  that,  infants  not  being  expressly 
named,  they  had  no  authority  to  baptize 
them.  But  if  this  be  true,  the  apostles  had 
no  right  to  baptize  females,  for  neither  are 
they  specified  in  the  order ;  on  the  contrary, 
only  the  masculine  gender  is  expressed : — 
"^e  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,"  &c. 
Moreover,  if  our  opponents  will  insist  upon 
a  strict  construction  of  the  words,  irrespec- 
tive of  the  scope  and  intent  of  the  order,  they 
must  do  like  St.  Anthony — preach  to  the 
fishes ;  for  the  command  is,  "  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature^ 

The  instructions  which  the  apostles  had 
already  received,  rendered  it  unnecessary 
that  their  Lord  should  specify  either  infants 
or  females,  in  his  last  command  to  bai)tize. 
Those  holy  men  were  fully  aware  that  little 
children  were  a  part  of  the  visible  church 
of  Christ,  and  could  feel  no  hesitation  about 
receiving  them  to  baptism.  To  make  this 
matter  as  plain  as  possible,  allow  me  to 
employ 


AN  ILLUSTRATION.  171 


AN   TLLUSTBATION. 


Let  US  suppose  some  monarch  of  those 
days  giving  orders  to  his  commanding  gen- 
eral to  conquer  a  rebellious  province,  and 
enroll  the  people  as  his  subjects.  He  has 
before  taken  occasion  to  acquaint  his  general 
that  he  accounts  all  children  of  loyal  citizens 
as  subjects,  sustaining  the  same  relation  to 
his  kingdom  as  their  parents.  There  being 
a  complete  mutual  understanding  on  this 
point,  he  issues  a  brief  order  as  follows : 
"Go,  subdue  that  nation,  and  enroll  them 
among  my  subjects.  He  that  submits  to 
my  authority,  and  is  enrolled,  shall  be 
protected  in  person  and  property  ;  but  he 
that  does  not  submit  shall  suffer  death." 
Would  any  intelligent  commander,  in  the 
circumstances,  have  the  least  doubt  that  he 
was  expected  to  include  infants  in  the 
census  and  enrollment  ?  And  suppose  some 
one  of  his  officers  to  insist,  that  infants 
are  not  named  in  the  king's  order,  and 
therefore  ought  to  be  omitted  in  the  census ; 
that  infants  cannot  submit  to  the  royal  au- 
thority, and  therefore  should  not  be  enrolled 
as  subjects ;  that  it  will  be  time  enough  to 
enroll  them  when  they  can  decide  the  ques- 
tion of  submission  for  themselves.  What, 
in  such  case,  would  the  commander  have 
replied  ?  He  would  have  said,  "  I  know 
well  the  intent  and  meaning  of  the  royal 
order.      I   know   the   high   regard   of    the 


172  THE   SUBJECTS  OF   BAPTISM. 

king  for  the  offspring  of  his  loyal  citizens. 
He  has  himself  assured  me  that  he  accounted 
such  as  his  subjects,  bearing  the  same  relation 
to  his  kingdom  as  their  parents.  I  am  cer- 
tain that  he  would  be  much  displeased^  should 
I  fail  to  have  them  included  in  the  census 
and  enrollment.  Moreover,  you  say  that  in- 
fants cannot  submit,  and  therefore  must  not 
be  enrolled.  You  might  just  as  well  argue, 
that  because  they  cannot  submit,  therefore 
they  must  be  put  to  death ;  for  the  king's 
order  is,  '  He  that  does  not  submit  shall  suf- 
fer death.'" 

I  leave  it  to  the  intelligent  reader  to  apply 
the  illustration. 


The  Lord  Jesus,  long  before  his  death, 
had  authorized  his  apostles  both  to  preach 
and  baptize.  But  their  instructions  limited 
them  to  "  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel."  After  his  resurrection,  he  assigned 
them  the  world  as  their  field.  "  Go,"  says 
he,  "teach  all  nations, baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you." — Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  This  last  com- 
mand of  Christ,  instead  of  excluding  little 
children,  seems  to  be  worded  with  a  special 
design  to  make  room  for  them.  The  reader 
will  please  to  observe,  that  the  word  teach 


ALL   NATIONS."  173 

occurs  twice  in  the  passage :  "  Go,  teach  all 
nations,"  and  "  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things,"  &c.  In  the  original,  there  is  no 
such  tautology,  as  the  two  words  are  quite 
different,  and  differ  in  their  significations. 
The  first  word  rendered  teach^  is  naertTevaart 
(^matlieteusate^)  from  naQnrtvw  (mathetev.o^)  TO 
DISCIPLE,  TO  SECURE  AS  SCHOLARS,  TO  INI- 
TIATE   INTO  A  SCHOOL  AS  LEARNERS.      As  tO 

the  real  meaning  of  the  word,  all  Baptist 
writers  of  eminence  are  so  well  agreed  with 
us,  that  it  may  be  considered  as  settled. 
Dr.  Carson  says,  "  It  is  well  known  that  the 
word  corresponding  to  teach,  in  the  first  in- 
stance in  which  it  occurs  in  this  passage, 
signifies,  to  disciple  or  make  scholars ^^  p.  169. 
Mr.  Campbell,  also,  founder  of  the  numerous 
sect  called  by  his  name,  makes  the  same  ad- 
mission, and  adds,  that  "  no  man  can  be  said 
to  be  discipled,  or  converted,  till  he  is  im- 
mersed."—  Ghu.  Baptist,  p.  630.  The  com- 
mand of  the  Saviour  may  therefore  be  para- 
phrased thus  :  *'  Go  disciple,  or  enroll  as 
scholars,  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  &c ; 
"  instructing  them  in  the  observance  of  all 
the  things  which  I  have  commanded  you." 
Now,  it  must  be  admitted  that  children  of 
two  years  old  are  capable  of  learning  in  the 
school  of  Christ.  They  may  therefore,  with 
propriety,  be  enrolled  therein,  as  scholars  ; 
and  their  parents  may  assume  the  obligation 
to  instruct  them,  at  that  early  period.  The 
Baptists  can  hardlv  deny  this,  though  thev 
15  *  " 


174  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

allege  that  infants  of  a  few  days  old  can,  in 
no  sense,  be  accounted  scholars.  It  is  easy 
to  show  that  this  objection  has  no  force. 


SCHOLARSHIPS   FOR  INFANTS. 

It  is  not  uncommon  for  a  father  to  secure, 
in  some  literary  institution,  a  scholarship 
for  his  infant  child,  before  it  is  able  to  talk. 
He  pays  down  the  required  sum,  and  receives 
an  authenticated  document,  by  which  the 
officers  of  the  institution  are  bound  to  in- 
struct the  child  in  various  branches  of  learn- 
ing, whenever  its  capacities  shall  be  suffi- 
ciently developed.  And  where  is  the  ab- 
surdity of  making  a  provision  of  this  kind? 
Are  not  such  parents  counted  wise  and 
provident  ?  And  is  it  less  wise  to  secure 
for  a  young  immortal,  a  scholarship  in  the 
school  of  Christ,  and  to  engage  his  instruc- 
tors at  the  earliest  period?  Yet  this  is 
precisely  what  is  done  when  a  parent  gives 
up  his  infant  child  to  God,  in  baptism.  He 
solemnly  binds  himself  to  bring  up  his  child 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 
It  is  true,  the  Baptist  brethren  pursue  a  WQvy 
different  course ;  they  leave  their  children 
out  of  the  school  of  Christ  till  they  make  a 
credible  profession  of  faith,  and  then  intro- 
duce them.  This  is  as  though  our  primary 
schools  should  refuse  admission  to  pupils, 
till  they  have  made  a  great  proficiency  in 
learn  in  j<l 


THE   WAY  THE   COMMAND  WAS   GIVEN.   175 

"  But  "how  can  a  little  child  be  called  a 
disciple  f  I  answer,  that  the  word  means 
simply  a  scholar  or  learner.  It  occurs  262 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  always  in 
the  same  radical  sense.  It  is  applied  to  be- 
lievers in  Christ  in  common  with  others, 
because  they  are  professed  learners  while 
they  live. 

\Ye  now  see  that  the  command  to  baptize 
all  nations,  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the 
previous  declaration  of  Christ,  that  little 
children  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
And  the  Baptist  brethren  are  guilty  of  add- 
ing to  the  commission,  when  they  make  him 
to  say,  "  Go,  disciple  the  adult  part  of  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  and  none  others^ 

CIKCUMSTANCES   IN  WHICH  THE  COMMAND 
WAS   GIVEN. 

Besides ;  look  at  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  apostles  received  the  command. 
As  Jews,  they  were  familiar  with  the  practice 
of  admitting  proselytes  by  circumcision. 
They  knew  that  when  a  Gentile  was  received 
into  the  Jewish  church,  his  children  also 
were  admitted,  and  were  subjected  to  the 
same  religious  rites  with  himself.  If  Christ 
had  commanded  them  to  disciple  all  nations, 
circumcising  them,  they  would  confessedly 
have  understood  him  as  including  children 
with  their  parents.  It  is  just  as  clear  that 
the  command  to  disciple  all  nations,  haptiz- 


176  THE    SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 

ing  them,  would  be  taken  by  the  apostles  as 
equally  comprehensive.  The  commission, 
therefore,  in  the  circumstances  in  which  it 
was  given,  and  taken  in  connection  with  the 
previous  instructions  of  Christ,  was  equiva- 
lent to  an  express  command  to  baptize 
children.* 

PETER'S   UNDERSTANDING    OF    THE    COMMIS- 
SION. 

The  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  in- 
trusted to  the  apostles,  were  first  employed 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  They  then  opened 
the  gospel  dispensation,  and  made  known 
the  terms  of  admission  to  Christ's  visible 
kingdom.  If  children,  hitherto  embraced 
in  that  kingdom,  were  to  be  excluded,  that 

*  Baptist  authors  quote  with  an  air  of  triumph  the 
words  of  Professor  Neander  :  "  It  is  certain  tliat  Christ 
did  not  ordain  infant  baptism."  If  this  learned  historian 
had  referred  to  the  facts  and  evidences  on  which  he 
founded  his  opinion,  we  might  have  judi^ed  of  its  sound- 
ness. His  mere  opinion  is  wortli  no  more  than  that  of 
other  men.  Great  historical  learnino-  is  no  evidence  of 
great  logical  powers.  AVe  may  judge  of  his  ability  to 
reason  correctly  from  the  following  specimen  :  "  In  the 
latter  years  of  the  second  century,  Tertullian  appeared 
as  a  zealous  opponent  of  infant  baptism,  a  proof  that  it 
was  not  then  usually  considered  as  an  apostolic  ordin- 
ance." Ch.  Ilist.  p.  199.  Now  it  is  an  undisputed  fact 
that  Tertullian  was  just  as  zealous  an  opponent  of  the 
baptism  of  uinnarricd  adults  ;  and  according  to  the 
reasoning  of  the  learned  1^-ofessor,  this  was  a  proof  that 
the  baptism  of  umnairit'd  adults  was  not  then  cou- 
Bidered  as  of  divine  authority  ! 


"  THE   PROMISE."  177 

was  the  very  time  to  make  the  announcement. 
And  surely,  if  the  apostles  had  been  Bap- 
tists, they  would  have  embraced  the  oppor- 
tunity to  declare,  in  emphatic  terms,  that 
little  children  were  thenceforth  for  ever  cast 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Saviour.  But  in- 
stead of  this,  the  apostle  Peter,  in  his  first 
exhortation  to  christian  baptism,  includes 
children  with  their  parents.  "Repent,"  says 
he,  "  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  for  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to 
your  children^ — Acts  ii.  38,  39.  Why  did 
the  apostle  make  this  particular  mention  of 
the  children  of  those  whom  he  addressed,  if 
he  designed  to  exclude  them  from  baptism  ? 
Certainly  no  Baptist  minister  would  name 
children  in  such  a  connection,  unless  for  the 
purpose  of  ridiculing  infant  sprinkling. 


Bat  what  is  that  promise  of  which  Peter 
spoke,  and  how  would  he  be  understood  by 
his  audience?  We  must  bear  in  mind  that 
they  were  exclusively  Jews  and  Jewish  pros- 
elytes, whom  he  addressed.  The  "  Parthians, 
Medes,  Elamites,"  and  others  named  as  pre- 
sent, were  no  other  than  foreign  Jews  who 
had  revisited  Jerusalem  ;  and  it  was  at  the 
house  of  Cornelius,  seven  years  later,  that 
the  first  Gentiles  were  admitted  to  baptism. 


178  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

And  what  would  those  Jews  understand  by 
the  ]^romi8e  to  them  and  to  their  children? 
Undoubtedly  they  would  recur  to  the  great 
promise  made  to  Abraham,  in  which  Jeho- 
vah declared  that  he  would  be  a  God  to  him 
and  to  his  seed  after  him. — Gen.  xvii.  5. 
This  promise  was  continually  on  their 
tongues;  and  in  view  of  entering  the  chris- 
tian church,  the  question  would  naturally 
arise  in  their  minds,  whether  it  was  now  re- 
voked, and  their  children  cast  out.  Peter, 
being  himself  a  Jew,  is  aware  of  their  scru- 
ples, and  satisfies  them  at  once.  He  tells 
them  that  the  promise  is  still  to  them  and  to 
their  children,  and  on  this  ground  urges 
them  to  repent  and  be  baptized.  But  on  the 
supposition  that  he  meant  to  exclude  their 
children  from  baptism,  his  language  is  quite 
inexplicable. 

SOPHISTICAL   ARGUMENT    OF    THE   BAPTISTS. 

The  Baptist  brethren  dwell  much  on  the 
'passage,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned." — Mark  xvi.  16.  On  this 
they  reason  as  follows :  Infants  cannot  be- 
lieve, therefore  infants  must  not  be  baptized. 
Their  error  in  tliis  matter  is  two-fold.  1st. 
They  understand  the  passage  as  intended  to 
define  who  shall  be  baptized  ;  whereas  the 
sole  object  in  view  is  to  inform  us  who  shall, 
and  who  shall    not  be   saved.     2d.  If  they 


SOPHISTICAL  ARGUMENT   OF  BAPTISTS.   179 

can  prove  by  this  passage  that  infants  can- 
not be  baptized,  because  they  cannot  believe  ; 
by  precisely  the  same  reasoning  they  can 
prove  that  infants  cannot  be  saved,  especially 
as  the  concluding  words  are,  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned."  So,  when  the 
apostle  says,  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  srived,"  if  we 
adopt  the  Baptist  principle  of  interpretation, 
we  must  conclude  that  infants  are  excluded 
from  salvation,  because  they  cannot  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  The  truth  is,  these 
and  many  other  passages  are  intended  to  de- 
fine the  terms  of  salvation  for  adults,  and 
have  no  bearing  whatever  on  the  case  of  in- 
fants. 


180  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

Sameness  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Churches — No 
new  organization  by  the  apostles — 'I'he  first  Christian 
Church  unbaptized — The  olive  tree — Testimony  of 
facts — An  unjust  imputation — Nature  of  infant  mem- 
bership— Import  of  circumcision. 

That  the  apostles  baptized  little  children, 
and  that  they  were  authorized  to  do  so  by 
the  instructions  of  their  Divine  Master,  has, 
I  hope,  been  made  sufficiently  apparent.  It 
is  equally  clear  that,  in  the  absence  of  any 
specific  instructions  on  the  subject,  they 
would  have  been  led  to  the  same  course,  by 
their  perfect  understanding  of  the  essential 
sameness  of  the  church  of  God  under  all  dis- 
2)ensatwns.  For  if  the  Christian  church  was 
simply  a  continuation  of  the  Patriarchal  and 
Jewish,  with  a  change  only  in  the  ordinances 
and  forms  of  worship,  then  the  right  of  mem.- 
bership  was  the  same  in  both.  And  as  in- 
fants were  received  into  the  Old  Testament 
church  by  circumcision,  they  must  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  New  Testament  church  by 
baptism.  These  several  points  wc  hope  to 
establish  in  the  proper  order. 


FIRST  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH  UNBAPTIZED.   181 

NO   NEW  ORGANIZATION   MADE   BY  THE 
APOSTLES. 

First.  The  apostles  must  have  understood 
the  Christian  church  to  be  a  continuation  of 
the  Jewish,  since  thej  made  no  new  organi- 
zation. The  gospel  dispensation  was  fully 
opened  by  them  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ; 
and  if  the  foundations  of  a  new  church  were 
to  be  laid,  that  was  the  proper  time  for  the 
work.  But  no  such  thing  was  .attempted. 
On  the  contrary,  it  appears  from  the  record, 
that  the  christian  church  was  already  in  ex- 
istence. It  had  been  convened  some  days 
before  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  for  the  transac- 
tion of  business  ;  and  "  Peter  stood  up  in  the 
midst  of  the  disciples,  and  said  (the  number 
of  the  names  was  about  an  hundred  and 
twenty).  Men  and  brethren,"  &c. — Acts  i. 
15,  16.  Here  was  a  church  of  Christ,  com- 
posed of  one  hundred  and  twenty  members; 
and  they  exercised  the  highest  functions  of 
a  church,  in  the  election  and  ordination  of 
an  apostle  in  the  place  of  Judas. 

THE   FIRST  CHRISTIAN   CHURCH  UNBAPTIZED. 

They  constituted  the  first  christian  church ; 
and  to  them  were  "  added"  the  three  thou- 
sand converts  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. But  how  did  these  hundred  and 
twenty  find  their  way  into  the  church  ?  It 
is  certain  that  they  never  received  christian 
16 


182  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

baptism.  Some  of  them  may  have  submitted 
to  the  baptism  of  John,  but  that  could  not 
answer  in  the  place  of  christian  baptism,  as 
we  have  shown  in  a  former  chapter.  The 
leading  Baptist  writers  agree,  that  christian 
baptism  was  not  administered  before  the  day 
of  Pentecost ;  yet  previously  to  that  time, 
there  was  a  christian  church  existing  in  full 
operation ;  and  how  did  the  members  obtain 
admission  without  baptism?  Mr.  Alexan- 
der Campbell  tries  to  solve  the  difficulty  by 
asserting  that,  "  When  a  person  is  appointed 
by  Grod  to  set  up  an  institution,  he  is  not 
himself  to  be  regarded  as  a  subject  of  that 
institution."  Deb.  ivith  Rice^  p.  356.  That 
is,  if  we  take  his  meaning,  those  hundred 
and  twenty  disciples  were  appointed  to  set 
up  christian  baptism ;  and  for  that  reason 
were  themselves  exempted  from  a  compliance 
with  the  ordinance.  But  this  evasion  will 
answer  no  purpose ;  for  Abraham  was  ap- 
pointed to  set  up  circumcision,  and  yet  sub- 
mitted to  the  rite  himself.  Aaron  was  the 
first  Jewish  high  priest,  yet  he  was  conse- 
crated in  precisely  tlie  same  manner  in  which 
he  consecrated  others. 

"WHY  NOT   BAPTIZED. 

The  only  rational  explanation  of  the  mat- 
ter is  this:  Those  hundred  and  twenty  dis- 
ciples, with  their  chiKlren,  had  been  received 
into  the  church  under  the  former  dispensa- 


WHY  NOT  BAPTIZED.  188 

tion,  by  circumcision ;  and  had  not  forfeited 
their  standing  by  the  rejection  of  Christ. 
When,  therefore,  the  unbelieving  Jews,  with 
their  children,  were  cut  off  by  a  judicial  sen- 
tence, pronounced  by  the  Saviour  four  days 
before  his  death  (Matt,  xxiii.  37,  88,  and 
Luke  xix.  41 — 44),  these  remained  in  the 
church  and  formed  the  nucleus,  around 
which  those  converted  in  after  times  were 
gathered.  As  they  had  never  lost  their 
standing,  in  the  church,  it  was  not  propei* 
that  they  should  be  subjected  to  an  initiatory 
rite,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  world. 
For  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  being 
substantially  the  same,  membership  in  the 
one,  of  itself,  conferred  all  the  privileges  of 
membership  in  the  other.  Thus  we  see  that 
the  first  Christian  church  was  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  the  Old  Testament  church 
purged  of  its  apostate  members. 

It  is  no  objection  to  this  reasoning,  that 
those  Jews  who  were  converted  after  they 
were  cut  off,  were  required  to  be  baptized, 
notwithstanding  they  had  been  circumcised. 
It  is  true  that,  in  restoring  an  excommuni- 
cated member,  on  profession  of  repentance, 
we  would  not  have  him  rebaptized ;  but  the 
cases  are  by  no  means  parallel.  The  unbe- 
lieving Jews  were  cut  off  under  a  former 
dispensation.  And  while  they  were  in  a 
state  of  excommunication,  christian  baptism 
was  instituted.  Hence  it  was  proper  that 
they  should  be  placed  on  the  same  footing 


184:  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

with  the  world  at  large,  and  when  they  be- 
came obedient  to  the  faith,  should  enter  the 
church  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Gentiles. 

Secondly.  That  the  apostles  regarded  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  churches  as  essentially 
the  same,  appears  from  their  own  declara- 
tions. 

THE   GOOD   OLIVE   TEEE. 

The  apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  the  excision 
of  the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  writes  thus  : 

"  For  if  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  the  lump 
also  is  holy ;  and  if  the  root  be  holy,  so  are 
the  branches.  And  if  some  of  the  branches 
be  broken  ofiP,  and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive 
tree,  wert  graflfed  in  among  them,  and  with 
them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the 
olive  tree;  boast  not  against  the  branches. 
But  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root, 
but  the  root  thee.  Thou  wilt  say  then, 
The  branches  were  broken  oft',  that  I  might 
be  grafted  in.  Well,  because  of  unbelief 
they  were  broken  oft',  and  thou  standest  by 
faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear :  for  if 
God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  Behold, 
therefore,  the  goodness  and  the  severity  of 
God!  on  them  which  fell,  severity;  but  to- 
ward thee,  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  his 
goodness :  otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  cut 
oft'.  And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still 
in  unbelief,  shall  be  graft'ed  in :  for  God  is 
able  to  graft'  them  iu  again.     For  if  thou 


THE   GOOD   OLIVE   TREE.  185 

wert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree  whicli  is  wild 
by  nature,  and  wert  grafted  contrary  to  na- 
ture into  a  good  olive  tree,  how  much  more 
shall  these,  which  be  tl^e  natural  branches, 
be  grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree!" — Eom. 
xi.  16—24. 

Here  the  apostle  represents  the  visible 
church  of  God  under  the  figure  of  a  good 
olive  tree.  Of  the  natural  branches,  namely, 
the  Jews,  the  greater  part  were  broken  off: 
and  what  followed?  Was  the  tree,  root, 
trunk,  and  branch,  destroyed  ?  No  such  thing ; 
the  tree  remained  with  all  its  "  fatness,"  and 
the  Gentiles,  branches  of  a  wild  olive,  were 
grafted  into  it.  What  a  strong  evidence 
that  the  Christian  church  is  a  mere  continua- 
tion of  the  Jewish  !  But  this  is  not  all.  The 
apostle  looks  forward  to  the  period  when 
the  Jews,  the  natural  branches,  shall  be  re- 
stored. And  what  does  he  say  will  then  be 
done  with  them  ?  They  "  shall  be  graffed  into 
their  own  olive  tree."  In  other  words,  they 
shall  be  re-instated  in  that  very  church  from 
which  they  were  cut  off  for  unbelief.  Lan- 
guage cannot  be  more  explicit  in  reference 
to  the  substantial  sameness  of  the  church 
under  both  dispensations. 

The  same  apostle  addresses  the  Ephesians 
thus :  "  Wherefore  remember,  that  ye  being 
in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh,  who  are 
called  uncircumcision,  by  that  which  is  called 
the  circumcision  in  the  flesh  made  by  hands ; 
that  at  that  time  ye  were  without  Christ, 
16  * 


186  THE  SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

being  aliens  from  the  commonwealtli  of 
Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of 
promise,  having  no  hope,  and  without  God 
in  the  world."— Eph.  ii.  11,  12. 

What  was  that  "commonwealth  of  Israel," 
from  which  these  Gentiles  were  once  aliens? 
What  but  that  church  of  God  to  which  the 
Jews  belonged  ?  Bearing  this  in  mind,  let 
us  hear  the  apostle  further  : 

"  Now,  therefore,  ye  are  no  more  strangers 
and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the 
saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God  ;  and 
are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone." — Yer.  19,  20. 

Who  were  "  the  saints,"  with  whom  these 
Gentiles  had  now  become  fellow-citizens? 
They  were  the  patriarchs  and  prophets ; 
Abraham,  Moses,  David,  Isaiah.  Again, 
what  was  that  "  household  of  God,"  of  which 
the  Ephesians  had  become  members  ?  The 
visible  society  of  the  saints  of  all  ages. 
Once  more  ;  what  is  that  one  mystical  tem- 
ple, in  laying  whose  foundations  both 
prophets  and  apostles  united  ?  No  other 
than  that  visible  church  of  God,  which  abides 
the  same  under  every  dispensation. 

TESTIMONY  OF  FACTS. 

Thirdly.  The  same  truth  is  established  by 
indisputable  facts.  The  church  under  both 
dispensations    worshipped   and  obeyed  the 


THE  RITUAL   CHANGED.  187 

same  Triune  God,  acknowledged  the  same 
moral  law,  and  received  the  same  glorious 
gospel ;  for  "  unto  us  was  the  gospel  preached, 
as  well  as  unto  themr — Heb.  iv.  2.  Under 
both  dispensations  the  church  looked  by 
faith  to  the  same  atoning  Saviour,  through 
the  shedding  of  whose  blood  was  remission 
of  sins  ;  taught  the  same  fundamental  truths  ; 
insisted  on  the  same  terms  of  salvation, 
namely,  faith  and  repentance  ;  and  required 
the  same  qualifications  for  church-member- 
ship. What  more  is  wanting  to  prove  that 
the  church  of  God  is  the  same  in  substance 
now  that  it  was  in  the  days  of  the  patriarchs 
and  prophets  ?  There  is  not  near  as  much 
evidence  to  prove  that  the  Regular  Ba'ptist 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
amidst  the  changes  it  has  undergone,  is  the 
same  ecclesiastical  body  that  it  was  forty 
years  ago. 

THE   RITUAL   CHANGED. 

It  is  true  that  the  numerous  and  burden- 
some rites  of  the  old  dispensation  passed 
away  at  the  death  of  Christ,  and  a  few  simple 
ordinances  were  appointed  in  their  stead. 
But  let  us  not  commit  so  great  an  error  as 
to  suppose  that  external  forms  constitute 
the  essence  of  a  church,  or  that  they  may 
not  be  changed  to  any  extent  by  the  Supreme 
Lawgiver,  without  affecting  the  identity  of 
his  visible  kingdom.     The  ceremonial  law 


188  THE  SUBJECTS  OF   BAPTISM. 

was  appointed  for  temporary  purposes,  to 
keep  the  Jews  distinct  from  the  surrounding 
heathen,  and  direct  their  minds  to  the  coming 
Messiah.  It  was  "  a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come."  Its  bloody  sacrifices  pointed  to 
the  cross  of  Christ,  and  its  "  divers  wash- 
ings" typically  represented  the  sanctification 
of  the  heart  and  life  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
When  Christ  at  last  appeared  and  offered 
himself  on  the  cross,  that  law,  having 
answered  its  purposes,  expired  by  virtue 
of  its  own  limitation,  leaving  the  church 
unimpaired  by  the  change. 

AN  UNJUST  IMPUTATION  REPELLED. 

Our  opponents  object  against  our  doctrine, 
that  faith  and  holiness  were  not  required  of 
the  Jewish  church,  as  such,  and  that  there- 
fore it  cannot  be  the  same  as  the  Christian. 
What  an  imputation  is  this  against  infinite 
purity  I  That  he  should  constitute  a  visible 
church  and  not  require  faith  and  holiness 
of  its  members  !  The  character  of  God  and 
the  whole  tenor  of  the  Old  Testament 
scriptures  refute  the  foul  and  perilous 
assertion,  and  show  that  God  has  always 
required  faith  and  holiness  of  all  who 
entered  into  covenant  with  him.  Look  at 
the  following  passages : 

Deut.  xxvi.  17 — 19,  "Thou  hast  avouched 
the  Lord  this  day,  to  be  thy  God,  and  to 
walk  in  his  ways,  and  to  keep  his  statutes, 


CERINTHIAN  ERROR.  189 

and  bis  commandments,  and  his  judgments  ; 
and  to  hearken  unto  his  voice :  and  the 
Lord  hath  avouched  thee  this  day  to  be  his 
peculiar  people,  as  he  hath  promised  thee,  and 
that  thou  shouldest  keep  all  his  command- 
ments ;  and  to  make  thee  high  above  all 
nations,  which  he  hath  made,  in  praise,  and 
in  name,  and  in  honour ;  and  that  thou 
mayest  be  a  holy  people  unto  the  Lord  thy 
God,  as  he  hath  spoken."  See  also  Psalm 
Ixxviii,  and  Heb.  iii.  16 — 19. 

RE-APPEARANCE  OF  CERINTHIAN  ERROR. 

The  ancient  Cerinthians  maintained,  that 
the  Jewish  church  was  the  church  of  an 
inferior  God,  who  had  fallen  from  his  pris- 
tine virtue  and  dignity ;  that  the  Old 
Testament  scriptures  having  been  inspired 
by  this  inferior  deity,  were  of  no  binding 
authority,  and  that  the  object  of  Christ's 
mission  was  to  destroy  his  empire,  and 
introduce  the  worship  of  the  supreme  God. 
The  sect  itself  has  long  ceased  to  exist ;  but 
some  of  its  objectionable  opinions  re-appear 
in  those  Baptist  authors,  who  decry  the  Old 
Testament  church,  as  though  its  religion 
were  false,  and  its  ordinances  of  no  value. 
But  who  are  we  that  we  should  speak  lightly 
of  institutions  ordained  by  infinite  wisdom 
and  purity  ?  What  though  the  great  body 
of  the  Jewish  church,  at  different  periods, 
departed  from  God,  and  perverted  l;iis  or- 


190  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

dinances  ?  The  very  same  things  have 
befallen  the  Christian  church ;  and  if  the 
existence  of  the  former,  as  a  true  church  of 
God,  was  destroyed  by  the  general  corrup- 
tion of  its  members,  the  same  thing  must 
be  affirmed  of  the  latter.  We  should  bear 
in  mind  that  the  constitution  and  laws,  which 
God  gave  to  his  church,  were  good  and 
pure,  however  they  may  have  been  abused 
by  men. 

Ever  since  the  fall,  God  has  had  a  church 
on  earth  professing  the  true  religion.  The 
external  exhibitions  of  his  grace  to  that 
church  may  be  compared  to  a  rivulet  taking 
its  rise  from  the  first  promise  of  a  Saviour, 
and  the  appointment  of  burnt-offerings,  and 
gliding  onward  to  Noah,  where  it  receives 
an  important  tributary.  Thence  it  passes 
down  to  the  father  of  the  faithful,  where  it 
is  swelled  by  the  influx  of  a  mighty  stream. 
Then,  as  a  broad,  majestic  river,  it  flows 
along  the  channel  of  the  Jewish  nation,  till 
it  meets  the  cross  of  Christ,  when  it  over- 
flows its  banks,  and  extends  its  healing 
virtues  to  all  nations  of  the  earth. 

Since  then  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches  are  substantially  the  same,  the 
right  of  membership  in  both  must  be  the 
same.  And  as  infants,  by  express  authority 
of  God,  were  introduced  into  the  one,  they 
are  equally  entitled  to  membership  in  the 
other. 


NATURE  OF  INFANT  MEMBERSHIP.  191 


NATURE  OF  INFANT  MEMBERSHIP. 

To  some  persons  it  sounds  strange  to 
speak  of  infants  as  belonging  to  the  church. 
Membership  in  the  church  is,  in  their  minds, 
associated  with  communing  at  the  Lord's 
table,  and  voting  at  ecclesiastical  meetings. 
But  those  things  are  in  no  wise  essential 
to  church-membership.  In  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  little  children  are  recognized 
in  the  constitution  and  laws,  as  citizens  of 
the  commonwealth  ;  just  as  much  so  as  adults. 
The  State  is  not  only  bound  to  protect  them 
in  their  persons  and  rights  of  inheritance, 
but  to  make  provision  for  their  education, 
by  establishing  schools  and  providing 
teachers.  And  in  some  countries,  as  Prussia, 
parents  are  required  by  law  to  send  their 
children  to  the  schools.  Yet  these  infant 
citizens  do  not  anyv/here  exercise  the  elec- 
tive franchise,  or  hold  office,  till  they  reach 
a  certain  age,  and  possess  certain  qualifica- 
tions. Just  so,  and  in  the  same  sense,  the 
children  of  professing  christians  belong  to 
the  church,  and  have  a  right  to  the  distin- 
guishing badge  of  membership.  They  are 
to  be  enrolled  as  scholars  in  the  church,  the 
school  of  Christ ;  and  their  parents  placed 
under  a  solemn  obligation  to  train  them  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 
And  when  they  attain  to  maturity,  if  they 
give  evidence  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  repent- 
ance unto  life,  they  are  to  be  admitted  to 


192  THE    SUBJECTS    OF   BAPTISM. 

all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  adult  mem- 
bers. 

That  infants  were  members  of  the  Old 
Testament  church  will  appear,  if  we  inquire 

HOW  PERSONS   WERE   ADMITTED    INTO   THAT 
CHURCH. 

How,  for  instance,  would  a  heathen,  who 
desired  to  renounce  idolatry  and  embrace 
the  true  religion,  be  received  into  the  ancient 
church  of  God  ?  What  religious  rites  were 
performed  on  the  occasion  ?  The  answer  is, 
that  from  the  time  of  Abraham,  circumcision 
was  required.  See  the  account  of  the  insti- 
tution of  this  ordinance  in  Gen.  xvii.  9-14. 
From  that  time  circumcision  was  the  distin- 
guishing mark  of  God's  professing  people. 
Accordingly,  in  Exod.  xii.  48,  49,  we  find 
that  the  stranger  who  would  unite  with  the 
Jewish  church  must  first  be  circumcised. 
But  were  his  children  to  be  left  out  and  still 
counted  as  heathen  ?  No :  the  same  passage 
says,  "Let  all  his  males  be  circumcised." 
Thus  we  see  that  when  parents  were  admitted 
into  the  church,  their  children  were  admitted 
with  them,  and  subjected  to  the  same  reli- 
gious rite  with  themselves. 

IMPORT   OF   CIRCUMCISION. 

Let  us  now  consider  that  rite  by  which 
infants  of  eight  days  old  were  recognized  a3 


IMPORT  OF   CIRCUMCISION".  193 

members  of  tlie  visible  churcb,  and  see  if 
its  import  is  not  essentially  the  same  as  that 
of  baptism. 

1.  Circumcision  bound  all  its  subjects  to 
obey  the  whole  law.  Gal.  v.  3  ;  *'  I  testify- 
again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that 
he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law."  Does 
baptism  impose  stronger  obligations  than 
these  ? 

2.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  holiness  of 
heart.  Rom.  ii.  29  ;  "  Circumcision  is  that 
of  the  heart."  Deut.  xxx.  6;  "And  the 
Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all 
thy  soul."  All  agree  that  baptism  is  a  sign 
of  regeneration. 

3.  Circumcision  being  a  bloody  rite, 
pointed  to  the  atonement  of  Christ.  Baptism 
directs  our  minds  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling. 
Heb.  X.  22  ;  "  Having  our  hearts  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water." 

4.  Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.  Rom.  iv.  11;  "And  he 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had 
yet  being  uncircumcised."  Can  more  be  af- 
firmed of  baptism  ? 

Now  we  are  gravely  told  by  Baptist  wri- 
ters that  circumcision  was   intended   as  a 
mark  or  badge  of  Hebrew  descent  and  of 
temporal  privileges,  rather  than  of  a  religious 
17 


194  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

relation.  In  proof  of  this,  they  urge  that 
the  Ishmaelites  and  Edomites  were  circum- 
cised. "  The  Ishmaelites  and  Edomites  were 
apostates  from  the  faith  of  Abraham.  And 
will  it  be  pretended  that  the  abuse  of  circum- 
cision by  apostates,  proves  that  it  was  not 
the  initiating  rite  of  the  church  ?  Why  not 
argue,  that  since  Mormons  practise  baptism, 
and  yet  do  not  enter  into  the  christian 
church,  baptism  cannot  be  an  initiatory 
rite?" — Rice  on  Bapt.^  p.  220.  No  clearer 
proof  is  needed,  that  circumcision  was  not  a 
mark  of  Jewish  descent,  than  the  fact  that 
strangers  of  any  nation,  who  embraced  the 
true  religion,  were  circumcised.  Says  the 
divine  injunction,  "  One  law  shall  be  to  him 
that  is  home  born  and  to  the  stranger." — 
Exod.  xii.  48,  49.  And  if  half  the  world 
had  embraced  the  religion  of  Jehovah,  they 
would  have  been  circumcised. 

Such  is  the  nature  of  that  ordinance,  which 
was  administered  to  infants  of  eight  days  old, 
by  the  express  command  of  God.  And  we 
cannot  but  perceive  that  our  Baptist  breth 
ren,  had  they  lived  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion, with  their  present  views  of  divine  ordi- 
nances, would  have  been  most  strenuous 
opponents  of  infant  circumcision.  Do  they 
object  to  the  baptism  of  infants  because  it 
imposes  obligations  which  tlie  child  cannot, 
at  the  time,  understand?  The  same  thing 
might  have  been  urged  against  circumcision. 
Do  they  argue  that  baptism  implies  holiness 


IMPORT  OF   CIRCUMCISION.  195 

of  heart  and  life?  So  did  circumcision.  It 
is  not,  however,  necessary  to  our  main  argu- 
ment, that  we  should  prove  baptism  to  have 
come  in  the  room  of  circumcision  ;  yet  it  is 
very  evident  that  the  two  ordinances,  if  they 
do  not  correspond  in  every  particular,  hold 
the  same  place,  signify  the  same  things,  and 
impose  similar  obligations. 


196  THE  SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  V. 

A  Direct  Warrant  needless — Female  Communion — Ob- 
jections answered — Baptism  not  in  applicable  to  In- 
fants— Infant  Communion — Advantages  of  Infant 
Baptism. 

From  the  previous  discussion  it  is  appa- 
rent that  infants,  having  once  been  admitted 
into  the  visible  church  by  the  authority  of 
God,  must  retain  the  right  of  membership, 
until  the  same  authority  is  pleased  to  revoke 
it.  Here  we  take  our  stand,  and  ask  our  op- 
ponents, "When  and  where  has  the  God  of 
heaven  revoked  the  right  ?  We  call  upon 
the  advocates  of  "  direct  warrant"  to  answer 
the  question.  The  burden  of  proof  in  this 
case  rests  upon  them.  Let  them  tell  us  when 
and  where  the  Supreme  Legislator  has  de- 
clared that  infants,  though  once  admitted  into 
his  church,  are  now  for  ever  excluded.  Let 
them  point  us  to  even  the  least  shadow  of  au- 
thority for  thrusting  little  children  out  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  They  can  produce 
none  either  in  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New. 
In  the  absence  of  such  authority,  any  at- 
tempt to  deprive  infants  of  the  right  of 
membership,  is  a  virtual  attempt  to  set  aside 


A  DIRECT  WARRANT  NEEDLESS.       197 

the  laws  of  God.  It  is  more:  it  is  under- 
taking to  legislate  in  opposition  to  the  au- 
thority of  Jehovah !  Fearful,  indeed,  is  the 
responsibility  they  assume  who  banish  from 
the  nursery  of  the  church  those  who  have 
been  placed  there  by  the  enactment  of 
heaven,  for  whom  the  Lord  Jesus  has  shed 
his  blood,  for  whom  he  has  shown  the  ten- 
derest  affection,  and  of  whom  he  has  declared, 
"  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God." 

A  DIRECT  WARRANT  NEEDLESS. 

And  here  we  see,  more  clearly  than  ever, 
why  the  Saviour  gave  no  express  command, 
in  so  many  words,  to  the  disciples,  to  receive 
infants  into  the  church.  For,  as  he  made  no 
change  in  respect  to  membership,  they  per- 
fectly understood  that  the  same  persons  were 
to  be  admitted  as  formerly.  The  church 
being  essentially  the  same  under  both  dis- 
pensations, and  baptism  having  been  substi- 
tuted for  circumcision  as  the  initiatory  rite, 
it  followed,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  infants 
still  retained  the  right  of  membership,  and 
consequently  were  to  be  baptized.  And  an 
express  command  to  that  effect  would  have 
been  quite  as  needless  as  a  command  to  admit 
females  to  the  table  of  the  Lord.  Neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  could  have  been  needed 
for  the  direction  of  the  apostles,  who,  being 
Jews,  knew  perfectly  well  of  whom  the  visi- 
ble church  consisted.     Accordingly,  when 


198  THE    SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 

they,  in  full  assembly,  decided  that  circum- 
cision was  no  longer  obligatory  ;  instead  of 
authorizing  any  change  in  regard  to  infant 
membership,  they  left  it  untouched;  a  striking 
proof  that  they  intended  it  to  remain. — See 
Acts  XV.  23-29.  For,  if  Christ  had  required 
them  to  exclude  infants,  there  could  hardly 
have  been  a  more  suitable  opportunity  to 
announce  the  change. 

And  yet  there  are  persons  who  say,  "  Show 
us  an  express  command  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  the  admission  of  infants.  No  matter 
what  the  Old  Testament  says  in  regard  to 
infant  membership ;  if  you  cannot  find  a 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  for  it  in  the  New,  they 
must  be  excluded."  It  is  easy  to  expose  the 
futility  of  such  reasonings.  Suppose  that 
in  a  case  in  which  the  right  of  an  infant  to 
an  inheritance  is  contested,  a  gentleman  of 
the  bar  should  offer  the  following  argument 
to  the  Court :  "  It  is  true  that  children  were 
once  permitted  by  the  laws  of  this  Common- 
wealth to  inherit  the  estates  of  their  parents. 
But,  those  laws  are  of  a  comparatively  ancient 
date.  In  the  meantime  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  the  Commonwealth  have  undergone 
various  changes.  Show  us  a  law  of  the  last 
Session  of  the  Legislature,  by  which  the 
rights  of  in  flints  are  re-affirmed.  Unless 
such  an  enactment  can  be  found  in  the  jour- 
nal of  the  last  Session,  iniiints  are  no  more 
to  inherit  the  estates  of  their  parents."  The 
absurdity  of  such  reasoning  is  obvious ;  but 


FEMALE   COMMUNION.  199 

it  is  not  more  absurd  than  the  argument  that 
infants  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  church, 
because  there  is  no  express  command  in  so 
many  words  in  the  New  Testament  for  their 
admission. 


FEMALE   COMMUNION. 

Besides,  this  reasoning  will  go  to  exclude 
females  from  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  cannot 
be  pretended  that  there  is  any  express  com- 
mand or  inspired  example  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament  in  favour  of  their  admission 
to  that  ordinance.  Mr.  Booth,  indeed,  sup- 
posed he  could  find  an  explicit  warrant  for 
female  communion  in  the  words,  "  Let  a  man 
examine  himself,"  &c. — 1  Cor.  xi.  28.  For 
he  alleges  that  the  Greek  word  avdpoTroi  {an- 
thropos^  MAN,  being  of  the  common  gender, 
denotes  both  men  and  women.  But,  Peter 
Edwards  has  produced  nineteen  instances 
from  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  word 
is  used  to  denote  the  male  in  distinction 
from  the  female  sex ;  as  1  Cor.  vii.  1  ,•  "  It  is 
good  for  a  man  dvOpdSno}  {anthropo)  not  to  touch 
a  woman."  Thus  the  boasted  "  explicit 
warrant"  is  lost  in  the  clouds. 

The  famous  "  direct  warrant,"  invented  by 
Mr.  Alexander  Campbell,  runs  thus :  "  In  1 
Cor.  xi,  Paul  speaks  directly  of  men  and  wo- 
men ;  and  gives  them  directions  accordingly. 
He  uses  the  word  dvhp  {aner)  MAN,  fourteen 
times  and  y^"^  {gune)  woman,  sixteen  times  ; 


200  THE  SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

then  in  their  stead  he  puts  the  pronouns  ye 
and  you^  fourteen  times,  and  gives  these 
same  persons  the  command  concerning  the 
Supper." 

This  statement  is  deceptive.  The  part  of 
the  chapter  in  which  women  are  named,  has 
no  connection  with  that  which  treats  of  the 
sacred  Supper.  In  verse  17,  the  apostle  in- 
troduces a  new  subject ;  and  then  in  verse  28, 
says,  "  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  "  &;c.  Nor 
is  there  the  least  shadow  of  necessity  for 
making  the  pronouns  ye  and  you^  used  in 
connection  with  the  last  named  subject, 
refer  to  women,  mentioned  far  back  in  the 
chapter.  So  universally  has  the  attempt  to 
find  a  direct  warrant  for  female  communion 
proved  a  failure. 

In  conclusion,  we  must  notice  an  objection 
or  two. 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

1.  It  is  asserted  by  our  opponents,  that 
baptism,  considered  in  its  scriptural  import, 
cannot  apply  to  infants.  That  ordinance, 
say  they,  supposes  that  the  subject  of  it  is  a 
believer  in  Christ,  has  obtained  remission  of 
sins,  and  been  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  none  of  which  things  can  be  affirmed 
with  certainty  of  an  infant.  But  do  they 
not  see  that  this  objection  bears  with  equal 
force  against  the  propriety  of  infant  circum- 
cision, and  is,  therefore,  an  indirect  impeach- 
ment of  the  wisdom  of  God  ?     Circumcision, 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWEEED.  201 

the  apostle  tells  ns,  was  "  a  seal  of  the  right-, 
eousness  of  faith,"  (Eom.  iv.  11,)  that  it  was 
a  sign  of  inward  holiness  ;  "  circumcision  is 
that  of  the  heart,"  (Rom.  ii.  29,)  and  that  it 
imposed  obligations  of  obedience,  binding 
the  subject  "  to  do  the  whole  law." — Gal.  v. 
8.  Let  us  ask  our  good  brethren,  How  could 
any  of  these  things  apply  to  an  infant  of 
eight  days  old  ?  The  proper  answer  .to  this 
question  will  satisfactorily  explain  the  ap- 
plicability of  baptism  to  infants. 

2.  It  is  objected  "  that  infant  baptism 
stands  on  the  same  foundation  as  infant  com- 
munion." I  answer,  that  there  is  this  very 
material  difference  between  them,  that  the 
baptism  of  little  children  rests  firmly  on  the 
authority  of  God's  word,  while  infant  com- 
munion has  not  the  least  countenance  from, 
that  quarter. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  these  two  observances 
may  be  traced,  historically,  to  a  common 
origin.  Infant  baptism,  as  we  have  else- 
where shown,  prevailed  universally  from 
the  earliest  period,  and,  as  we  have  every 
reason  to  believe,  from  the  times  of  the 
apostles.  Not  so  in  regard  to  infant  com- 
munion ;  we  have  not  the  slightest  hint  of 
it  till  the  middle  of  the  third  century. 
And  then  we  find  it  associated  with  the 
practice  of  immersion,  the  dogma  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  and  other  novelties.  It 
never  gained  a  universal  prevalence  among 
the  christians  of  any  age.    It  was  gradually 


202  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

abandoned  by  the  Western  churches,  though, 
among  the  Greeks,  infant  communion  and 
infant  immersion  have  continued  to  go  hand 
in  hand  to  this  day. 

3.  "  What  good  can  it  do  to  baptize  an  in- 
fant '/"^  In  turn  I  ask,  What  good  can  it  do 
to  baptize  an  adult?  If  it  be  urged  that 
adults  can  comprehend  the  nature  of  the  or- 
dinanpe,  and  the  obligations  they  incur,  I 
reply,  so  can  parents  understand  the  respon- 
sibilities they  assume  in  giving  up  their 
children  to  God  in  baptism.  And  so  can 
the  children  themselves  in  due  season  be 
made  sensible  of  the  privilege  and  the  duty, 
arising  out  of  their  early  dedication  to  the 
Lord.  An  inspired  apostle  proposes  the 
question,  "  What  profit  is  there  of  circumci- 
sion ?" — {Kom.  iii.  1).  His  own  answer  is 
*'  Much  every  wayV  And  this  is  our  reply 
to  those  who  hold  up  to  ridicule  what  they 
style  infant  sprinkling^  and  in  tones  of  defi- 
ance exclaim,  "  What  good  can  it  do  ?" 
Much  every  way  ;  quite  as  much  good  as 
infant  circumcision.     To  believing  parents 

*  A  candid  comparison  of  the  Baptist  and  Pedo-bap- 

tist  denominations  with  each  other,  will  hardly  fail  to 
show  the  advantages  which. result  from  an  early  conse- 
cration of  children  to  the  Lord.  Mr.  A.  Campbell,  in 
his  debate  with  Dr.  Rice,  was  compelled  to  admit  that 
be  had  publisheil  in  the  Millcimud  /Lnbingct;  as  his  de- 
cided opinion,  ''  that  theie  is  a  greater  probability  of 
Ralvation  to  the  children  of  rresbytcrians,  than  to  those 
of  the  Baptists,"  Tag-e  875.  'I'liis  ()))inion  had  refer- 
ence to  the  reli"ious  traininf?  of  the  children. 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  203 

wLo  present  their  children  to  God  in  bap- 
tism, that  ordinance  seals,  confirms,  ratifies 
that  gracious  covenant  in  which  God  pro- 
mises to  take  a  special  interest  in  the  chil- 
dren of  his  people — to  take  them  to  himself 
if  they  die  in  infancy — or,  if  he  spare  them 
to  riper  years,  the  same  gracious  covenant 
displays  his  readiness  to  bestow  on  them  all 
the  blessings  of  salvation.  It  imposes  cor- 
responding obligations  upon  the  parents  in 
regard  to  the  religious  instruction  of  their 
children,  who  are  thus  introduced  into  the 
vschool  of  Christ  to  be  trained  for  his  service. 
It  stimulates  them  to  the  performance  of 
duty,  by  holding  out  the  pleasing  expecta- 
tion that,  through  the  promised  blessing  of 
God  upon  their  labours,  their  beloved  off- 
spring may  be  partakers  of  those  rich  bless- 
ings of  which  baptism  is  a  sign.  To  the 
children  themselves,  so  soon  as  they  are  able 
to  understand  anything,  their  own  early  bap- 
tism represents  the  necessity  of  remission 
of  sins,  of  faith,  repentance,  and  new  obe- 
dience in  order  to  eternal  life,  blessings 
which  can  be  enjoyed  only  through  the 
blood  of  Christ,  and  the  operation  of  his 
Spirit.  Moreover,  as  they  have  had  the  seal 
of  the  covenant  placed  upon  them,  they  are 
bound  by  peculiarly  solemn  obligations,  to 
seek  for  and  possess  the  rich  blessings  held 
out  in  that  covenant.  Just  as  circumcision 
formerly  bound  its  infant  subjects  to  obey 
the  law,  so  under  the  present  dispensation, 


204  THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

baptism  binds  its  infant  subjects  to  obey  the 
gospel.  Nor  is  the  obligation  weakened  by 
the  circumstance  that  they  were  too  young 
to  yield  their  assent  at  the  time  of  baptism. 
It  is  a  principle  adopted  in  all  enlightened 
governments,  that  children  owe  obedience  to 
laws  to  which  they  have  never  given  their 
consent ;  and  surely  no  one  can  be  too  young 
to  be  brought  under  the  most  solemn  obliga- 
tions to  love,  serve,  and  glorify  God. 


THE  END. 


Princeton  Theological  SemmarySpeer   Library 


1    1012  01021   3199 


